Geothermal Committee Gets An Earful
By Paul Boerger, Mount Shasta Herald
February 1, 2006

The Telephone Flat Geothermal Project Oversight Committee met January 26th in Yreka to review the mitigation and monitoring plans for Calpine Corporation's controversial 49 megawatt geothermal electrical generation plant.

Citizens, committee members and Native American interests pointed to a variety of issues regarding the plant that's slated to be built at Medicine Lake, including whether it should be built at all.

Although the committee is narrowly empowered to oversee whether the mitigations are adequate and Calpine's compliance, the meeting often veered into extended debates on environmental issues, Native American cultural concerns, economic benefits and whether geothermal energy is actually a “green,” renewable energy source.

Calpine had planned to begin limited construction at the plant site in 2005, including clearing 30 acres at five sites in preparation for well drilling. But objections to inadequate mitigations and a limited plan review period at a September 2005 committee meeting caused the work to be suspended until the issues were resolved.

Bureau of Land Management field manager Tim Burke led the meeting. In addition to the public, committee members included representatives from the Pit River Tribe, Shasta Nation Inc., Shasta Nation, Save Medicine Lake Coalition, Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center and the Medicine Lake Homeowners Association.

The mitigation plan covers a wide range of issues including hazardous material spills, wildlife, construction dust, noise, odors, site decommissioning and reclamation, vegetation, emergency procedures, protection of Native American cultural interests and visual impacts.

Burke announced at the beginning of the meeting that the mitigation plan had undergone “extensive rewriting” since the last meeting and that the BLM and the US Forest Service agreed the plan “substantially complies with the Record of Decision.”

“The plan has gone back and forth between the BLM and the company for several months,” Burke said. “There are still a few tweaks to be made.”

Burke also noted the Native American tribes were being consulted on historic preservation issues.

Over the objections of several committee members, Burke said the project was approved but comments that could be incorporated into the final plan would be taken until February 17th.

In his update on the project Calpine project manager Andrew Whittome announced Calpine was officially in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but the company will continue to “maintain regular operations.”

“This is not a liquidation,” Whittome said.

Whittome said the bankruptcy was primarily to restructure debt and that the company should emerge from Chapter 11 in two years.

In a press release, Calpine said the Chapter 11 filing was intended to “strengthen its balance sheet, protect its assets, and enhance the value of its business, the company and many of its subsidiaries.”

Calpine lists debts of $17 billion against $26.6 in assets. Calpine operates power plants in numerous states including 10 percent of the power in the California grid.

Whittome announced that in addition to the site clearing, the 2006 plans now include surveys on transmission line pathways and the initiation of the hydrology plan. He said Calpine hopes to begin drilling wells in 2007.

The mitigation measures were reviewed for a portion of the meeting and several changes were made. Committee members were generally satisfied with the plan, but objected occasionally to the entire project.

Among the issues discussed were odor compliance procedures, noise, notification of residents in case of a plant emergency, chemical spill procedures, fire prevention, construction dust and the required bond that ensures site reclamation and/or cleanup.

Peggy Risch of the Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center questioned whether the bonding procedures were adequate for a company in bankruptcy.

“The bar should be raised,” Risch said.

Calpine is securing an initial $300,000 bond for the first phase of construction, and BLM representative Sean Hagerty said the bond was a third party guarantee not dependent on Calpine finances. He said the bond amount would be increased as the project expands and Calpine will not be allowed to expand the work if the bond requirements are not met.

Committee members asked for, but did not receive, agreement from the BLM or USFS to reexamine habitat for goshawks and ospreys.

Committee members said they would send in additional written comments in time for the February 17th deadline including objections to the use of acids to break up the underground rock formations intended to increase steam production recently approved for a single well.

In public comment, several past and present Calpine employees praised the project, saying the company offered good wages and provided a green, renewable form of energy. One noted the electricity in our area comes from “dirty” coal fired plants in Wyoming.

“When I was working at the site, a Native American came up and told me it hurts his heart, but when he went home he flipped on a switch. The electricity has to come from somewhere,” said a Calpine worker.

Another citizen said it was the American spirit of exploration and “can do” attitude that built the country and praised the plant for its continuing the tradition of the “miners and cattlemen who opened up Siskiyou County with their trails.”

In denouncing the plant's construction, Matt Elmore of the Pit River tribe angrily disagreed.

“The miner's trails destroyed our society. They were the beginning of our holocaust. This is all we have left of what was stolen from us after the killings and broken treaties,” Elmore said. “The plant doesn't benefit us. We live on a rancheria with no electricity or running water. We see it different. The place is sacred to us. It's no different than if we defaced the Washington Monument.

Industrial technology is not beautiful to us. It's a matter of perspective. A job with Calpine isn't enough for me.”

Sharon Elmore, also of the Pit River tribe, agreed.

“This is a place we take our children and have gatherings. It won't benefit anyone but Calpine,” she said. “We were taken off our land and put on reservations. I don't see it as a green energy source. It's a sacred place.”

Elmore noted that a group was going to Calpine's San Jose, CA headquarters to protest the company's “raping of our land.”

“We're not going away,” Elmore said.

Pit River tribe members left last week's meeting half way through to attend the January 27th protest of the plant.

According to attendee Barbara Semple, approximately 150 demonstrators gathered in San Jose, including representatives from several Native American organizations. They protested the plant with signs, information flyers and speeches by tribal elders.

A current Calpine employee said at last week's meeting that he also respects the area and uses Medicine Lake for hunting, fishing and snowmobiling.

“It's spiritual for me too,” he said.

Michelle Berditschevsky of the Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center said the issue was one of “two needs: people who love the place and the need to make a living and have a good job.”

“The plant will dramatically alter the area. It will not be the same,” Berditschevsky said. “It's a sacred area. Don't sacrifice Medicine Lake to meet a need that can be met in other ways.”

Berditschevsky said wind and solar power are better alternatives to geothermal.

“We have other possibilities that don't destroy beauty and sacredness,” she said.

Another Native American speaker said he felt the BLM and USFS did “a pretty good job.”

“A lot of the stuff was petty we had to sit through, just meant to slow down this project,” he said.

Some tribal members have praised the project in the past, saying the plant will provide much needed employment for Native Americans.

USFS, BLM and Calpine representatives did not respond to the public comments. Burke, however, did note it is not the committee's role to decide whether the plant should be built.

“That decision is up to the BLM and the Forest Service,” Burke said.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and as defined under the provisions of "fair use", any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment for non-profit research and for educational use by our membership.