Geot her mal E ner g y:

Potenti al &
Per mitti
Naina Arora
ng
Joelle Bird
Judith Schutter
Gail Spencer
Ag enda
 Geothermal energy
 Technology and uses
 Benefits & challenges
 Current climate for development
 Client: Snohomish Public Utility District
 Project: Environmental Assessment
 Laws & Regulations
 Overview of Permits
 Options - EFSEC
 Case Studies & Moving Forward
Ge otherma l

 The word geothermal comes from the

Greek words geo (earth) and therme
(heat).
 Generated in the earth's core, about
4,000 miles below the surface.
 Exhibited in the form of volcanoes,
geysers, and hot springs at surface.
Te chnolo gy

 Five main types of geothermal plants

 Dry Steam
 Flash Steam
 Binary Cycle
 EGS Enhanced Geothermal Systems
 GHP Geothermal Heat Pumps
Be nefits

 CLEAN
 “Emission-free”
 INEXPENSIVE
 Stable electricity prices
 CONSISTENT
 Base load energy - supplies low-cost energy
at constant rate in order to meet the region’s
continuous energy demand
Co mpariso n wit h oth er
energ y so urces
 96% operating availability > hydro dams, coal
and natural gas
 Higher capacity factor than wind & solar
 3rd largest domestic source of renewable
energy (after hydro and biomass)
 9 western states have potential to provide over
20% of national electricity needs
 Currently, geothermal produces less than 1%
of US electricity
Gl obal Geot hermal
Cap aci ty
Ch alle nges
 Finding & leasing of land
 Remote, rural areas
 Often on state or federal lands
 Exploration and drilling costs
 1/3 to ½ of project cost
 Wells costs between $1 and $5 million each
 Success rate for discovering geothermal
resources in new areas is about 20%
 Need to upgrade transmission system
 Productivity may decline over time
Hot sp ots
De velopme nt in U.S.
 9 Western States
 Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada,
New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah
 Each have potential for at least 100 MW of power
generation per state (Circular 790)
 Washington
 Cascade Mountain Range
 Olympic Peninsula
 Columbia Basin
 Focus on Glacier Peak (Snohomish County)
Ideal Ge ogra phy

 Volcanic
 Hot springs/geysers
 Marine climate
 Fracture/fault zones
 Flat terrain
 Aquiferous
Co st
 900’ / 2 days / over $100K
 Cost increase with depth
 Survey and Permits
 Access roads
 Gas measurement equipment
 Lab analysis
 Bits and reamers
 Logging
 Cement
Geothermal En ergy in
Sn ohomish Co unty, WA
Cli ent:
Sn ohomish Co unty PU D
 Largest PUD in Washington State
 Serves 318,000 customers
 80% of energy from BPA (hydropower)
 Interest in expanding renewable energy
 Tidal and geothermal exploration
 Preliminary studies on geothermal
Sn ohomish PU D Goals
for Geothermal
De velopme nt
 Meet I-937 Goals: 15% of electricity from
renewable sources by 2020
 Electricity needs for growing population
 Exploratory Drilling: Summer of 2009
 Binary Cycle Plant, if successful
 Explore EGS technology
 90 MW of Geothermal in Snohomish
Re gula to ry Qu estio ns

 Guidance on how to tackle regulations

and permits
 Not clear about developing geothermal
close to rivers, and in wilderness and
rural areas
 Better understanding of federal, state,
and private leasing/development
Pe rmit Ha ndbook

 Permit Handbook
 Addresses water, air, land and construction
issues, SEPA Review, and EFSEC
 Timeline of when to apply
 Relevant case studies
En vir onmental Impacts

 Water use
 Air emissions
 Land use compatibility and disturbance
 Wastewater and hazardous waste
 Noise and visual impacts
 Cultural/historic resources impacts
Laws and Re gula tio ns
 Clean Air Act
 NEPA – federal lands or projects that receive federal funds
 SEPA – state or private land
 Clean Water Act
 NPDES
 Underground Injection Control Regulations
 RCRA
 Toxic Substance Control Act
 Noise Control Act
 ESA
 Archaeological Resources Protection Act
 Hazardous Waste and Materials Regulations
Re gula to ry Time lin e

 39 Permits grouped into 6 categories

 3-30 days prior to construction (10)
 45-60 days prior to construction (7)
 60-90 days prior to construction (8)
 90-180 days prior to construction (8)
 1 year prior to construction (4)
 Post construction (2)
Ag encies
 Land
 City or county
 Department of Ecology
 Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
 Drilling
 Department of Natural Resources
 Water
 Department of Ecology
 Air
 Department of Ecology
 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
Water Pe rmits
 Issues:
 Fish and Wildlife
 Diverting/Obstructing Flow and Bed Reconfiguration
 Size and location of drain fields

 Types of Permits:
 JARPA
 Water Rights
 401, 404
 NPDES
Land-Use a nd
Co nstr uction
 Issues:
 Federal vs. Private/State Lands
 Construction
 Floodplains, shorelines, and critical areas
 Zoning

 Types of Permits:
 Building and Grading permits
 Floodplain Development, Shorelines, Critical Areas
Ordinances
 Archaeological Excavation, Forest Practices
Air Pe rm its
 Issues
 Emissions
 None (binary plants) or little (flash plants)
 Emit water vapor (looks like smoke)
 Hydrogen sulfide
 Occurs naturally, turns into sulfur dioxide
 Types of Permits
 New Source Review Construction Permits
 Prevention of Significant Deterioration
 Notice of Construction
 Title V Air Operating Permits
Dr il li ng Pe rm it

 Environmental checklist
 Blanket performance bond
 Map of drill site layout
 Location and source of water supply
 Topography description
 DNR site inspection
Bla nket Bo nd

 New drilling, re-drilling or deepening

 Environmental checklist
 Drilling permit
 $20,000
No ise

 Minimal noise
 Noise Permit - not required
 Muffling equipment
 Noise shields
 Insulated buildings
 Noise absorptive interior walls
SEPA

 Define the proposal

 Initiation - Environmental checklist
 Environmental review
 Environmental impacts
 Necessary permits
 Lead agency determination
EF SEC
 Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council
 “One-stop” siting process
 Renewable energy facilities may opt-in
 Preempts local land use ordinances
 Able to avoid NIMBY
 Site Certification Agreement
 Includes permits under Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and Federal Clean Air Act
 More predictable outcome
 Appeals go straight to State Supreme Court
Ge otherma l i n le gal
terms
 Geothermal resources
 CA – Mineral
 Wyoming and Utah – Water
 Washington – sui generis
 Ownership of geothermal rights
 Washington – surface owner
 California – mineral owner
Th e Geyse rs, CA
 First geothermal
plant in U.S. (1960)
 21 power plants
 1000 MW electricity
 Revenue: $11 million
to Lake and Sonoma
Counties in 2003
Another benefit:
 Jobs: 425 full-time
Wastewater discharge from the Town of W
and 225 contractors
Ch ena Ho t Sp rings,
Ala sk a
 1st geothermal
energy facility in AK
 Moderate
temperature
 Binary-cycle plant
 Cost-effective
 Remote location •Tours available
 Coexists with other of power plant

land uses – tourism! •Aurora Ice

Museum is
cooled by an
absorption chiller!
Newb erry, Ore gon
 Long history
 1974 - 1st application for
geothermal lease
 Over 30 years + close to $50
million went into exploration
 Large potential
 Flash technology
 Could produce 740 MW for
30 years
 Controversial
 One of 3 National
Monuments in OR
 NIMBY – campers, hikers,
fisherman
 Sierra Club & Oregon Natural
Desert Association
Th e Way Forwa rd

 State renewable
standards
 Federal tax credit
and stimulus
 Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS)
Ne w L egisl atio n?
US climate change legislation hits the fast track
Reports claim climate change bill could clear next hurdle by end of the month
Andrew Donoghue, BusinessGreen, 05 Jun 2009

 Under the legislation, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill, the US will
introduce a carbon cap-and-trade scheme designed to cut carbon emissions
17 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050 compared with 2005 levels.
Utility companies will also be required to generate 20 per cent of their energy
demands from renewable sources by 2020 and as a raft of new incentives for
low-carbon technologies will be introduced.

 The Energy and Commerce Committee said that the bill had been broadly
supported by a coalition of organizations that included electric utilities, oil
companies, car makers and more obvious supporters such as environmental
groups. "Because of its balanced approach, ACES (American Energy and
Security Act) has received broad support from industry and
environmentalists,"