How to resolve AdBlock issue? LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — At its first meeting of the new year, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday resumed energy talks left over from last year’s stalled attempt to explore alternative power options.
The board discussed plans to explore alternative energy solutions for Lake County and voted to form an ad hoc committee focused on energy policy development.
While the discussion did not outline concrete paths, it marked the start of a new round of exploration following the county’s unsuccessful negotiations for more than six months last year with Sonoma Clean Power, a service provider of the community-based electricity procurement program called Community Choice Aggregation, or CCA.
Sonoma Clean Power, or SCP, was the only option local jurisdictions seriously considered in 2025. The proposal became mired in uncertainty and controversy leading up to October, when the county and cities ultimately declined to sign the agreement.
In the meantime, the board directed staff to explore other options and providers.
In late October, Supervisor Bruno Sabatier reflected on the lack of an earlier search for additional options. “I should have asked for that to happen when we agreed to reach out to Sonoma Clean Power,” he said in a phone call with Lake County News.
At Tuesday’s meeting, Deputy County Administrative Officer Benjamin Rickelman told the board that staff have “some engagement with other CCAs.”
Rickelman reported that staff have scheduled meetings with Marin Clean Energy, which operates in several counties including Napa; Valley Clean Energy, which operates in Yolo County; and that they are awaiting a response from Pioneer Energy, which Glenn County plans to join in 2027.
Sabatier said Supervisor Helen Owen and he also have met multiple times with some developers and interested parties.
“I think this is a beginning — phase one — because yes, we need to get our feet on the ground and we need to get some guidance created. ” Sabatier said. “But in the long run, we have to involve the tribes and the cities. We are not going to win the energy game or market here in Lake County if we think just the county should do it for everyone else.”
The lack of tribal engagement was also a major point of controversy over the SCP proposal last year. The three local governments — the Board of Supervisors, along with the Lakeport and Clearlake City Councils — also only jointly met for the first time at the end of September, just two days before the Clearlake City Council voted on the matter, which ended in a 3-2 vote against joining SCP.
Sabatier suggested that joint discussions should happen earlier.
“We need to do that way ahead of time with the cities and the tribes for whatever we're moving towards,” he said. “I really believe we need to start internally and grow from there, but not move into a project and share that project at the last moment like I feel like we were doing with the choice aggregate that was provided earlier or later last year.”
Rickelman said staff are also “looking through questions from the community regarding geothermal and just broader energy policy with the county.”
“There's a lot of technical questions, but there's also a difficult developmental pathway for energy projects with California's rather — I would say — opaque but demanding entitlement process,” he said.
One of the major controversies surrounding the SCP proposal involved Lake County’s mandatory participation in the company’s geothermal zone efforts, which seek to develop geothermal projects in the future.
Critics raised concerns over the company’s support for Assembly Bill 531, which would allow the state to bypass local authority in geothermal development.
The energy development landscape extends beyond geothermal. Rickelman said the geological hydrogen company Koloma will begin reaching out to landowners in Lake, Mendocino and Sonoma counties on Wednesday regarding “subsurface imaging,” a process that maps deep underground structures to identify potential hydrogen reservoirs.
All supervisors agreed on forming an ad hoc committee to lead energy policy development for the county. Supervisors Jessica Pyska, Owen and Sabatier expressed interest in serving on it.
The Brown Act does not explicitly limit the participation to only two supervisors. But for the committee to remain “ad hoc” and not be subject to public meeting requirements, it must include less than a quorum — meaning no more than two supervisors may serve on it.
Sabatier, while agreeing to withdraw, raised a concern regarding the collaboration that had already taken place.
"I'm okay with backing down, but I just think that there's been some collaboration already between myself and Supervisor Owen with some of the things that were discussed here already,” he said. “Again, willing to jump off. But there are some conversations that have gone pretty deep."
His remarks appeared to caution that swapping members may trigger a “serial meeting” violation by effectively involving three supervisors in the process.
“I think there's ways to remedy that, so we don't have Brown Act violations going forward,” Pyska said.
Supervisor Brad Rasmussen agreed. There was no further discussion on this matter. With Sabatier withdrawing, Pyska and Owen were voted to participate in the committee.
“It’s bigger than geothermal, although I do have a new plant coming back online in my district,” said District 5 Supervisor Pyska, referencing Mayacama Geothermal LLC’s project to bring the former Bottle Rock geothermal plant on High Valley Road back into operation. “This includes biomass, this includes microgriding, this includes hydrogen. This includes, you know, all of our energy policy.”
“We have resources, and I wanted our community, our people here in Lake County, to be able to benefit from those resources,” said Owen.
Editor’s note: Clarifications have been made in this article regarding the number of supervisors on the ad hoc committee and Brown Act requirements.
Email staff reporter Lingzi Chen at
