Supervisors raise concerns about lack of information on proposed geothermal project

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – A nascent geothermal project came before the Board of Supervisors earlier this month with “absolutely zero” information, according to a supervisor, prompting concerns about how the county should move forward on energy projects.

The item landed before the board with little information, exposing tensions between the county’s yearning for new energy projects, the lack of a guiding policy, and questions about process and transparency.

Prior to the Feb. 3 Board of Supervisors meeting, the public was given 102 words of information in the agenda packet about an issue of significant public interest in Lake County – energy development. 

The staff memo stated the county’s Administrative Office and Special Districts had been in conversation with EGX Energy about “siting a geothermal power plant and wells on the Southeast Treatment Plant property.” 

The site sits immediately north of a recently ruptured force main on Robin Lane – managed by the Special Districts – which spilled sewage that impacted properties in a 550-acre area, leaving 164 homes without safe well water due to fecal bacteria contamination of wells and the aquifer.

Deputy County Administrative Officer Ben Rickelman said the discussions on the geothermal project were “just very preliminary.”

“There isn’t any approval for this project,” he said. “We’re not asking for any analysis of the proposal.”

All that was being asked, he said, was “staff time.”

The item was brought forward by staff from the County Administrative Office and Special Districts Administrator Robin Borre. EGX Energy Chief Executive Officer and cofounder Damien Gerard also attended the meeting.

For Supervisor Bruno Sabatier, the request was “awkward” and “strange.” The existing process, he said, allows staff to work with developers without bringing such requests to the board at this early stage.

“There's a way to invoice and to work with the developers to do these things,” he added. 

Sabatier referred to the Community Development Department working on projects for a few years before coming to the Planning Commission. “I don't want to set a precedent where we're going to approve time for any other project that is large-scale that comes to us,” he said.

Borre explained that Special Districts had exceeded eight hours by reviewing requests and participating in meetings regarding this project. She said it’s a “new thing” for the department and “totally preliminary.”

“Is this a major project you guys want us to undertake?” Borre asked. 

While there was little doubt Lake County was interested in alternative energy, none of the supervisors felt comfortable giving a simple “yes” to Borre’s question at the meeting, citing insufficient information and concerns about how the item was presented. 

Sabatier said he’s not for or against the project, but objected to bringing the request before the board at such an early stage with minimal information.

“I don't think we should ever stop any discussion with any developer that wants to come to Lake County until we know it's not going to work, or the community doesn't want it or anything,” Sabatier said. “But right now, we're having a conversation with absolutely zero information.”

Hearing the project for the ‘first time’

Supervisors Brad Rasmussen and Jessica Pyska said they were hearing about the matter for the first time.

“I didn't know anything about this until it showed up on the agenda,” Rasmussen said. “It initially seemed to me like this would be something – since we created that energy ad hoc committee – that they may be talking about it.”

Pyska, who indeed sits on the recently formed energy policy development ad hoc committee, said this was her first time being part of the discussion too.

The formation of the new committee followed the county’s unsuccessful negotiations for more than six months last year with Sonoma Clean Power, a service provider of a community-based electricity procurement program that promised cheaper and cleaner electricity while requiring Lake County’s mandatory participation in their geothermal zone initiative. 

Early October, the Board of Supervisors decided not to cast a formal vote, leading to a de facto denial to the project, while directing staff to explore other options. 

At the Jan. 6 meeting, the board voted unanimously to form an ad hoc committee to develop energy policy for Lake County, consisting of supervisors Pyska and Helen Owen. 

So far the committee has not delivered a guideline or policy on the county’s energy project development.

Owen told Lake County News that the first meeting she had with EGX Energy took place in October, right after the chapter with Sonoma Clean Power concluded. 

“It’s a really exciting project,” Owen said at the Feb. 3 board meeting, adding that at this time, “It’s a little bit premature although I know that that energy is needed.”

“I just would like to see us put something together first before we move forward and examine it as a whole,” Owen said.

For Margaux Kambara, a speaker during public comment, trying to move forward with a project before establishing the guiding policy and framework needed to pull it “resembles the cart before the horse.”

“It seems there’s a desperate rush to do something, anything about our energy problem,” she added.

Among the criticisms of the agenda item, “I am really happy that this did come forward because the Brown Act precludes us from being able to talk to each other,” Owen said. “So now we all know about it.”

A project of ‘significant size’

Conversation began a year ago when the owner of Pluth Homestead Ranch, Tony Lamberti, reached out to EGX Energy about developing a geothermal project on his private property, according to Gerard, the company’s CEO.

Most of the ranch is located in Clearlake Oaks, with a small fraction falling within the city limits of Clearlake. The EGX team decided to meet with the city of Clearlake, Gerard said, adding that some supervisors and county staff members also attended.

According to Gerard, it was during that meeting that the idea was raised for the team to also consider using land surrounding the Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant – owned by Lake County Special Districts.

Gerard said the proposed plant would be 50 to 100 megawatts in scale, making it “a quite large geothermal plant.”

“The large plants at The Geysers are 50 megawatts,” said Pyska, whose District 5 includes part of the geothermal field. “A hundred megawatt project is something larger than we have.”

Noting the project has a “really significant size,” Pyska said, “I have a lot of concerns about the size of this project and the seismicity.”

“Obviously, this is very initial,” she said. “We don't have a lot to review yet.” 

Pyska added that she preferred having the project on private land rather than on county property. 

For Supervisor Eddie Crandell of District 3, where part of the county property and most of the private ranch are located, developers should follow standard public process – such as town halls, tribal consultation and community outreach – before coming to the board for extra staff time. 

“Get a hold of the town halls. Get on their agenda. Also start talking to the tribes,” he said. “It's not only the community that lives in the area that's affected by it, but it's also the tribal aspect, because of the cultural resources and whatnot – and whatever else is going to affect the land.”

Worries about ‘scaring off’ developers

As the discussion moved between criticisms of the agenda item and interest in expanding alternative energy – all based on limited information – supervisors cautioned against sending signals that could discourage potential developers. 

“I feel like this conversation potentially would make me wary of coming to Lake County to do that development when we're talking about the specifics of something that we have no idea about,” Sabatier said. “Because there's nothing specific to talk about.”

Although some information was shared at the meeting, no formal documentation had been submitted.

For Sabatier, “I have no proof of anything or understanding of the technology – I'm just talking from straight ignorance,” he said, adding that such discussions “are going to scare every developer from wanting to come to us if we have to go to this board for major projects every single time.”

Toward the end of the discussion, Sabatier suggested no action from the board: “We have to not put up barriers that don’t actually exist.”

“I don’t want you to be discouraged about the county property either,” Owen said to Gerard, referencing Pyska’s earlier comment about preferring private land for the project. 

“As we go through our process with the ad hoc, I'm hoping to see what benefits we can have with partners, and I don't want to scare off future developers here for energy,” Owen added.

“I don’t want you to be discouraged either,” said Pyska. “This is just the first time I’m hearing about it; these are my initial thoughts.”

Public concerns about sewage spill near the project site

The item came before the board roughly three weeks after the Jan. 11 Robin Lane sewage spill. Officials and experts said the time needed to clear the aquifer remained uncertain. 

The fact that Special Districts staff appeared to request time for a geothermal project at a site adjacent to the sewer rupture drew public outcry, particularly from residents living in the immediate impact area.

“How can the county be responsible to pursue this new industrial development when existing wastewater infrastructure has recently failed catastrophically?” asked Cassandra Hulbert, living at ground zero of the sewage spill impact on Robin Lane, during public comment. 

“I'm not against energy, I'm not against this project, but this is a matter of public health, transparency and trust,” she added. 

Kambara also questioned the involvement of the Special Districts as one of the leading agencies in the project. 

“Has this department's performance before and during the Robin Lane sewage spill inspired confidence?” she asked. 

The discussion lasted about an hour, and yielded no action toward the “staff time” request.

Lingzi Chen is a staff reporter at Lake County News and a 2024-2026 California Local News Fellow. Email her at lchen@lakeconews.com.