Proposed actions and alternatives

The three action alternatives and one no action alternative are as follows:

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action Alternative: This alternative was developed by ORNI 50, LLC and represents their preferred project design

Alternative 2 – Plant Site Alternative: This alternative was developed to reduce the amount of tree removal required and the potential visual effects from construction on the proposed power plant site

Alternative 3 – Modified Pipeline Alternative: This alternative was developed to reduce potential impacts on visual, cultural and wildlife resources in the Basalt Canyon area

Alternative 4 – No Action Alternative

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

CD-IV power plant and related facilities located to the east of the existing geothermal complex power plant facilities
Geothermal production and injection pipelines to Basalt Canyon would be the same as the Proposed Action, west of Highway 395
East of Highway 395, pipelines would proceed east rather than north (as in Proposed Action)

Alternative 3

Geothermal production and injection pipeline alignments in Basalt Canyon are modified
Location of proposed well 26-30 is slightly changed
Pipeline crossings placed underground

All of the three Action Alternatives propose the development of a 33 MW (net) geothermal power plant, requiring up to 16 geothermal wells, and associated pipelines and supporting facilities. The alternatives only differ in the location of the power plant and pipelines.

Alternative 4

No construction of the CD-IV Project
The three existing geothermal power plants, the pipeline from Basalt Canyon, and two existing production wells remain in function
Geothermal exploration in Basalt Canyon and Upper Basalt Canyon previously approved is expected to continue

In the Basalt Canyon, up to 11 additional wells that were authorized in previous National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents could be drilled for exploratory purposes, creating new impacts.

Which Alternative is considered the best?

The EIA reports that the No Action Alternative would be environmentally superior to all other alternatives, because the impacts of implementing the Proposed Action would not occur.

Among the three action alternatives, Alternative 3 has been identified by the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD) as the environmentally superior alternative because there are fewer impacts on biological, cultural and visual resources relative to the Proposed Action. The federal lead agencies have also identified Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alternative.

Critique

The EIA does not explain why the Proposed Action was considered over Alternative 3, even though Alternative 3 was identified as the "environmentally superior alternative." By continuing with the Proposed Action which has greater environmental, social and cultural impacts, it is important that the proponent justifies why this decision was made. There is a lack of transparency in failing to do so, and it raises suspicion that Alternative 3 was not chosen to cut down costs.

Image from: svcleanenergy.org Map Images from the EIA Report (Sec 2.0)

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse