2009 Geothermal Energy

Geot her mal E ner g y: Potenti al & Per mitti ng Naina Arora 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 Sn ohomish Co unty,

in 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  Jobs: 425 full-time and 225 contractors

Another benefit:

Wastewater discharge from the Town of W

Ch ena Ho t Sp rings, Ala sk a  1st geothermal energy facility in AK  Moderate temperature  Binary-cycle plant  Cost-effective  Remote location  Coexists with other land uses – tourism!

•Tours available of power plant •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,"