|
|
|
|
Coso pumping opponents appeal to Inyo supervisors |
|
|
Wednesday, 06 May 2009 |
 The Coso Geothermal Plant’s request for a permit to pump water from it’s Hay Ranch property and pipe the water nine miles for injection into it’s depleting geothermal reservoir has been appealed to the Board of Supervisors. A public hearing on the appeal will be at 9 a.m. today in Independence. File photo By Mike Bodine
Register Staff
5-5-2009 Coso Geothermal Plant has another hurdle to overcome before it can pump water from Hay Ranch.
Little Lake Ranch is appealing the Inyo County Planning Commission’s approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Coso to pump water from its Hay Ranch property to its geothermal power generating facility to replenish the underground geothermal reservoir. The water will be injected into the reservoir to bring capacity at the plant back up to maximum allowable levels.
This appeal is going to the Board of Supervisors for a special meeting and public hearing Wednesday to decide whether to certify, modify or deny the permit.
The special hearing is a “de novo” hearing, meaning the supervisors will be hearing and judging on the arguments as if it were the first time, or if the Planning Commission had never decided on the permit. This means the meeting is expected to be as long as the Planning Commission meeting/ public hearing on the permit in March. Staff will present their findings, opponents and proponents will make their arguments and summarize points of appeal and rebuttals. The March meeting went on for more than nine hours.
In March, the commission decided in favor of the permit, but modified the amount of water allowed to be pumped for the first year, from 4,800 acre-feet per year to 3,000.
Gary Arnold, legal counsel and part-owner of the Little Lake Ranch and Hunting Club, is appealing the permit fearing the pumping will permanently damage the riparian area. Arnold is appealing on several fronts, including the inadequacies of pursuing alternatives to pumping water, and even the questioned success of water injection to improve production. The appeal is also based on environmental concerns, tax revenues and Coso’s “mismanagement of the reservoir.”
One the most compelling arguments brought by Arnold is an April 10, 2009 article in Ridgecrest’s The News Review by Carl Fulton Austin. Austin is the founder and principal engineer of the Coso geothermal facility.
Austin states that the fundamental question of whether the water injection will increase or decrease the plant’s production “is not an easy question to answer.”
Austin makes the analogy of the geothermal reservoir to hot water pipes in a house. If the hot water tap is losing pressure, it is either a problem with the pipes or the hot water heater. Or with the geothermal plant, “is the plumbing system plugged up, are you running out of fluid or both?”
The article was part of a lengthy scientific paper written by Austin and his son, Richard. The two conclude in the paper, “Without question, one can run a field out of fluid, but before spending a lot of money on artificial recharge, it is not a bad idea to determine both what has really been going on and what the recharge fluid will do to the host rock.”
Austin also discusses the complex problems with rock permeability at the Coso site and problems with cold-water injection into a hot well. Austin explains that while injection systems have worked for other plants in the past, injection is also a common cause of “wrecking an otherwise good well.”
Arnold is also appealing on the grounds of a larger, more general concept that most renewable energy sources are in the desert, be it solar, wind or geothermal, and that water priorities are always a problem with these sources. Arnold argues that by denying Coso the permit, it would force Coso into adopting “more environmentally friendly options” such as air-cooling, instead of water cooling, and the plant would “still produce all or even more than it currently produces.”
In previous interviews and at the commission meeting, Coso Operating Company has explained that the air-cooled technology is incredibly expensive. And, the plant was not built with the intentions of adding an air-cooled system, meaning complications would arise with a new system and the production would drop substantially especially during the peak summer months. In the summer, demand for energy is greatest, but so would the demands on the cooling system trying to keep the plant cool in the hottest time of the year. Coso explained that with the air-cooled system, akin to a large vehicle radiator, the plant would be producing just enough energy to keep the plant cool, and that’s it.
Arnold also argues that the plant will continue to operate whether the Hay Ranch project is approved or not.
Specifically, Arnold refers to a December 2007 report by Fitch Ratings on the Coso bonds. In the report, the category of “Primary Credit Concerns” states, “The financial projections rely upon the success of the Hay Ranch augmentation program.”
Arnold said he thinks Coso is trying the cheaper alternative by deferring planned maintenance that may have caused the reservoir depletion problems in the first place, and using it as an excuse to need the water.
Arnold also states that Coso is reporting it will soon embark on a $100 million improvement program that, according to the Fitch report, “could potentially replace the Hay Ranch and offset continued decline in production.”
Fitch also reports that the owners of Coso Operating Company, namely Terra-Gen and ArcLight, “have significant economic incentive to invest in Coso projects over the long term.”
There have also been reports of concern that if the plant does not get the Hay Ranch water the county would suffer. The survival of the plant is very important to the county as the plant was recently assessed by the county to be worth $1.09 billion. This means annual property tax revenues for the county of $11 million.
Tom Lanshaw, county assessor, said Monday that the value of the plant was de-valued by some $110 million due to the Hay Ranch project delays. But, like any addition to a property, the county can pick up more revenues as the plant adds infrastructure or increases production.
Arnold said the supervisors have an obligation to protect the environment of the county, and the board should be “on the cutting edge of water conservation activities.” And as such, the supervisors should present an in-depth report of, according to Arnold, crucial issues of the project.
These issues include: the mitigation trigger levels, who controls them and why; tax revenues; three different hydrology models, which all contain different impact conclusions, and which one is being used for the permit or impact review; air-cooled versus water-cooled technology; and the feasibility of the alternatives.
Arnold said that the approval of the project will not benefit the county or Coso. “Sooner rather than later, Coso will be forced to adopt the preferred and only sensible alternative of an air-cooled system, when the water from Rose Valley (Hay Ranch) is no longer available.”
The meeting will begin at 9 a.m., tomorrow in the County Administrative Center in Independence.
|
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 10 July 2009 )
|
|
|
|
