Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board directs staff to pursue energy element, keep ad hoc meetings and pause CCA consideration pending state rulings
Summary
After months of debate, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to issue an RFP to develop a General Plan energy element, allow the ad hoc Energy Policy Committee (staff-led introductory meetings only) to continue non‑regulatory briefings with project proponents, and pause decisions on Community Choice Aggregator membership while CPUC and appellate outcomes play out.
The Lake County Board of Supervisors on July 14 endorsed a package of steps aimed at giving the county an energy policy framework before large projects are permitted locally.
Deputy CAO Ben Rickelman said the ad hoc Energy Policy Committee recommended pursuing an optional General Plan energy element to give communities and applicants predictable guidance on where projects may be appropriate and what community benefits and protections should apply. "The element is where and the policy is how," Rickelman summarized (SEG 3059–3067, 3504–3506).
The board asked staff to issue an RFP, funded from economic development funds, for a consultant to lead community visioning and drafting of an energy element; staff said the element will be a slower, public process and the RFP is a first planning step. The ad hoc committee will continue to hold introductory, non‑regulatory meetings with prospective projects as a sounding board, but the board clarified those sessions are informational and do not replace formal permitting (SEG 3476–3550).
On Community Choice Aggregator (CCA) membership — which could affect local energy procurement — staff recommended pausing active consideration until key state actions settle. Two pending proceedings (an appellate case and CPUC Track 3 rulemaking over the PCIA/power charge) could materially change CCA economics; staff said a resolution is unlikely before 2027. The board agreed to hold off on a membership decision and to monitor state outcomes (SEG 3567–3609).
Board members and members of the public debated transparency and the ad hoc’s scope. Some supervisors asked that meetings with developers be handled by staff or be publicly visible; others said the ad hoc needs a private space to develop policy before wider public hearings. Several municipal advisory councils and community groups urged urgency, asked that proposed performance standards, revenue participation and worker and water protections be included in a draft policy, and urged a moratorium option for certain project types such as data centers and large industrial projects (public comment and board discussion, SEG 3624–3950).
The board asked staff to return with a draft energy policy within about 60 days and proceed with an RFP for the General Plan energy element. Direction also included pausing CCA action pending the court and CPUC outcomes and requesting staff and the ad hoc committee continue transparent outreach and return with a status report and a draft policy to the board for refinement.
The board did not adopt a moratorium at the meeting; several supervisors signaled interest in returning with an ordinance or temporary moratorium if applications for data centers or other high‑impact uses appeared before the policy or ordinance work was complete.
