Plan for more geothermal

blmBLM Releases Draft Environmental Document for 33-MW Geothermal Project Near Mammoth Lakes

The Bureau of Land Management today issued a Draft Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR) analyzing a proposal to develop additional geothermal resources near Mammoth Lakes in Mono County, California.

A 60-day public comment runs through Jan. 15, 2013. Public meetings will be held Wednesday Dec. 5 at the Mammoth Lakes Community Center, 1000 Forest Trail, Mammoth Lakes and Thursday Dec. 6, at the Crowley Lake Community Center, 458 South Landing Road, Crowley Lake. Both meetings run from 6 to 8 p.m.

The proposed 33-megawatt Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project would be built on the Inyo National Forest within existing federal geothermal leases and private lands.  It would include construction of a new geothermal power plant and substation, up to 16 new production/injection wells, multiple pipelines and access roads. A 650-ft long transmission line is proposed to interconnect the new power plant to the existing Southern California Edison substation at Substation Road.  The proposed Casa Diablo IV plant, substation, access roads, well pads, pipelines and transmission line would occupy approximately 80 acres.

The agency preferred Alternative 3 differs from the applicant’s proposal in pipeline alignments and the location of one well.

The Draft EIS/EIR may be reviewed at the BLM Bishop Field Office at 351 Pacu Lane, Suite 100, Bishop, CA 93514, and the Mono County Library at 400 Sierra Park Road, Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546. Additionally, CD-ROM versions of the Draft EIS/EIR may be obtained by contacting the Bishop Field Office. The document is also available on the Internet at:  HYPERLINK “”

Written comments should be submitted to: BLM, Bishop Field Office, 351 Pacu Lane, Suite 100, Bishop, CA 93514; Attn: Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project Draft EIS/EIR, c/o Collin Reinhardt, Project Manager; by facsimile: (760) 872-5050; or by e-mail:; Subject: Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project Draft EIS/EIR. To ensure comments will be considered, the BLM must receive them by Jan. 15.

Oral comments may be submitted to Margie DeRose at the Inyo National Forest, Supervisor’s Office by calling (760) 873-2424, or in person at, 351 Pacu Lane, Suite 200, Bishop, CA  93514, or at a public meeting.

Additional information regarding the project can be obtained from Reinhardt at (760) 872-5024, email



13 Responses to Plan for more geothermal

  1. Ken Warner November 17, 2012 at 8:42 am #

    Finally! Inyo and Mono County are sitting on a gold mine of renewable energy.

    Both counties could be energy self sufficient with cheap electricity for all. And cheap electricity will do far more for both counties economies than tourism. And maybe — if they don’t screw it up like they seem to do everything else — we can free both economies from dependence on tourism and make tourism into just the extra boost to self sustaining economies that it should be.

    Further, Inyo and Mono Counties should merge into one entity, gaining efficiencies of scale an reduction of duplicated efforts. Inyomono County could be an economic powerhouse.

    • Mark November 17, 2012 at 10:38 am #

      So were all going to work for the geothermal plant for great pay, benifits and pensions! Nice pipe dream Ken Warner.

      Any additional power generated would just go to the grid at wholesale rates. The only benifit I see is additional taxes for the county.

      I’m all for it.

      • Trouble November 17, 2012 at 2:10 pm #

        Why so negative Mark? I don’t see how this will effect taxes negatively. Plus I don’t see Ken saying anything about high paying jobs.

      • Ken Warner November 17, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

        You have a limited imagination — probably deliberatly just to be snarky on a blog.

        The availability of cheap energy will attract high tech businesses that use lots of energy.

        It’s not just another fast food joint that will employ low skilled, undereducated workers — like yourself (back at ya). It’s a core element of an infrastructure that frees both counties from dependence on tourism — if they do it right.

        • johnjcampnfish November 18, 2012 at 6:24 pm #

          Not to rain on your parade, but projects like this do not mean cheap energy for the local area. I live down in Kern county with around 300,000 barrels of oil per day coming out of the ground within a 50 mile radius of my house and I am currently paying about $3.75/gal for regular.
          A project like this is still good in that it will boost the local gov’t coffers with tax revenues, the construction phase will help the economy and a couple permanent operations and maintenance jobs will probably come about.

          • Mark November 19, 2012 at 10:18 am #

            Johncampnfish – you’ll have to excuse the locals. They’ve been riding on the wagon so long they’ve forgot what it’s like to pull the wagon.

          • Big AL November 19, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

            We don’t make any excuses for you Mark ..we just consider the source.

  2. Mark November 17, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

    Trouble this additional geothermal plant will generate additional tax revenue. Nothing negative about it, I’m 100% for it regardless of environmental impact which I think is a minimum.

    The geothermal plant at Coso is the largest tax revenue generator for Inyo County. Not a whole lot of long term jobs though. And the industry it would attract, the kind that uses a lot of power would be fought against tooth and nail by FOI and other business stifling tree hugging wacko’s who call the Eastern Sierra home.

    The Coso geothermal plant didn’t free Inyo County of dependence on tourism. My sarcasm was at Ken’s visions of being free of tourism dependence. That’s not the direction the area is going, it will never happen. Most folks want to make the entire area a National Park. Me? I want to mine it, log it, graze it, put wind turbines and solar on it. And if we can make geothermal power while we’re at it, I’m all for that too.

    • Ken Warner November 17, 2012 at 9:29 pm #

      Your sarcasm should be directed at those who continue to flog the dog of tourism without the imagination to think of anything else. And I think there are enough young people who want something more than to be gofers for the tourists that new industries will be more and more welcome as the old timers die off.

      The rest of what you say — I agree with — for what that’s worth.

      • Mark November 18, 2012 at 6:28 am #

        Well Ken I can’t argue with that. Tourism creates low paying jobs with no bennies. A good example is Alaska (which is also the welfare state).

  3. diablo November 18, 2012 at 9:59 am #

    “House of the devil”

    A perfect name for this project

    Look out mammoth

  4. ferdinand lopez November 18, 2012 at 10:15 am #

    really,you think young people want to spend their lives in a limited ski resort in the middle of nowhere?ever watch breaking amish?and cudos to the power plant, but i dont think anyone knows what the impact will be.and really again,big business in the sierras,people live her because its quiet and beautiful,think things thru a little

  5. Sean F November 19, 2012 at 12:03 am #

    The people who work at the current plant here seem to like their $20/hr+ jobs plus benefits ( and that is entry level). I was told they have been hiring BTW.

    I would think the FOI and environmentalists would be all for a renewable energy source like Geothermal.

    I am all for this project. It will benefit the community both short term and long term. Besides the construction jobs and longer term positions it may create support jobs in the form of machine shops, welders, engineering services, security services etc etc. I doubt this plant will attract any new “big business” to the area. Did the first plant?


Leave a Reply

KSRW · 1280 N. Main St. Suite J · Bishop, CA 93514 · 760-873-5329
Positive Projections Web Design