2021 U.S. Geothermal Power Production and District Heating Market Report Jody C. Robins, NREL; Amanda Kolker, NREL; Francisco Flores-Espino, NREL; Will Pettitt, Geothermal Rising; Brian Schmidt, Geothermal Rising; Koenraad Beckers, NREL; Hannah Pauling, NREL; and Ben Anderson, NREL Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the U.S. Department of Thank you as well to the interviewees and survey Energy Geothermal Technologies Office for funding and respondents who provided valuable information support of this report. and feedback. In addition, Geothermal Rising’s contributions of data and • Interviewees: John Lund, Roy Mink, Jon Gunnerson, Dale time were integral to this publication. In particular, the Merrick, Darryl Anderson, Gwen Holdmann, Bernie Karl, survey conducted in 2019 provided foundational data. Elisabeth de Jong, Scott Davenport, Brian Brown, Doug Lamb, Martin Schmidt, Chester Robertson, Ric Johnson, The authors would also like to thank the many reviewers, Allen Campbell, Darren Kearney, Mike Lattin, Dan Hand, contributors, and stakeholders who provided input and Steve McKay. throughout the development of this report. In particular: Thanks to Donovan Gordon, Dave Crudele, Ryan Dougherty, • National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): Sertac Matt Rosenfeld, and members of the Geothermal Rising Akar, Chad Augustine, Nate Blair, Jeff Cook, Jesse Cruce, Policy Committee for insight into state and federal Henry Johnston, Jennifer Kurtz, Aaron Levine, Kevin policies impacting geothermal power and district heating McCabe, Gian Porro, Greg Rhodes, Rachel Rubin, Bethany development in the United States. Speer, Nicole Taverna, Craig Turchi, Ian Warren, Kate Young, and Guangdong Zhu Finally, the authors are appreciative of Joelynn Schroeder, Deanna Cook, Linh Truong, and Susannah Shoemaker • U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies from NREL’s communications department for graphics Office: Susan Hamm and Sean Porse development and editorial review. • Boston Government Services, LLC: Coryne Tasca and Jeff Winick • Navy Geothermal Program Office: Andy Sabin • Cornell University: Dr. Jeff Tester • Ormat: Paul Thomsen and Alora Bartosz • GeothermEx: Ann Robertson-Tait • Sinclair Well Products: John Tuttle • Abt Associates: Ben Matek. This work was authored in part by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Funding provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Geothermal Technologies Office. The views expressed in the article do not necessarily represent the views of the DOE or the U.S. Government. Cover photo by Eric Larson, Utah FORGE ii iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY List of Acronyms Executive Summary ATB Annual Technology Baseline ITC Investment Tax Credit This report, the 2021 U.S. Geothermal Power Production and District Heating Market Report, was developed by the National LCOE levelized cost of energy AGILE Advanced Geothermal Innovation Leadership Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Geothermal Rising BAU Business as Usual LCOH levelized cost of heat (previously the Geothermal Resources Council, or GRC), with funding support from the Geothermal Technologies Office BLM Bureau of Land Management MACRS Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (GTO) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). CLG closed-loop geothermal MW megawatt This report provides policymakers, regulators, developers, researchers, engineers, financiers, and other stakeholders MWh megawatt-hour CTR Controlled Thermal Resources This report provides policymakers, with up-to-date information and data reflecting the 2019 DDU deep direct use NEPA National Environmental Policy Act regulators, developers, researchers, geothermal power production and district heating markets, engineers, financiers, and other technologies, and trends in the United States. The report DOE U.S. Department of Energy NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory presents analysis of the current state of the U.S. geothermal stakeholders with up-to-date information market and industry for both the power production and ORC Organic Rankine Cycle EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration and data reflecting the 2019 geothermal district heating sectors, with consideration of developing EGEC European Geothermal Energy Council PON Program Opportunity Notice power production and district heating power projects. Geothermal heat pumps, although a key markets, technologies, and trends in the technology in the wider use of geothermal resources, are EGS enhanced geothermal system PPA Power Purchase Agreement outside the scope of this report. In addition, the report United States. evaluates the impact of state and federal policy, presents PRDA Program Research Development Announcement FORGE Frontier Observatory for Research current research on geothermal development, and in Geothermal Energy PTC Production Tax Credit describes future opportunities for the U.S. geothermal GDH geothermal district heating market and industry. PURPA Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act GEA Geothermal Energy Association The following is a summary of key findings for the U.S. PV photovoltaic geothermal power generation and district heating market. GRC Geothermal Resources Council RPS renewable portfolio standard GTO Geothermal Technologies Office TES thermal energy storage GW gigawatt TI Technology Improvement IEA International Energy Association TWh terawatt-hour IRT Improved Regulatory Timeline Photo by Janet Harvey, Heidelberg University, Ladenburg Germany iv Executive Summary | v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY U.S. Geothermal Power Generation capacity for 2019 (1,766 MW, calculated from the actual 4,000 generation reported by the EIA) represents a small decrease Market—Key Findings from the 1,817 MW calculated for 2015. Moreover, the 2019 power production is virtually identical to the 1,762 MW 3,500 The following table shows key geothermal power capacity calculated for 1990, the first year the EIA published this data and generation changes in the United States from the end of (EIA 2019b). Nameplate Capacity Winter Net Capacity 2015 to the end of 2019. Note that the mean net generation 3,000 2,500 Table ES-1. Geothermal Power Generation Capacity and Generation in 2015 and 2019 Summer Net s 2015 2019 t t Capacity Geothermal Power Data Source a 2,000 (97 power plants) (93 power plants) w a g e GEA 2016 and the 2020 Geothermal M Nameplate capacity 3,627 MW 3,673 MW 1,500 Rising industry survey Summer net capacity 2,542 MW 2,555 MW EIA 2019b 1,000 Mean Net Generation* Winter net capacity 2,800 MW 2,963 MW EIA 2019a 500 Utility-scale power generation 15.92 TWh 15.47 TWh EIA 2109b Mean net generation 1,817 MW 1,766 MW EIA 2019b (calculated) 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Additional key findings include: • Geothermal companies operating in the United States Figure ES-1. U.S. industry geothermal nameplate and net capacity, as well as mean net generation* have a combined 58 active developing projects and • Current U.S. geothermal power generation nameplate *Mean net generation is the effective capacity, calculated by dividing actual geothermal generation by the total hours in a year (Pettitt et al. 2020). Remaining prospects across nine states, with a majority located in terms are defined in Section 2.2. capacity is 3,673 MW from 93 power plants. Of this Nevada. Of these projects, five are in Phase IV, the phase capacity, 1,300 MW are located on public lands. Sources: Nameplate capacity is from the 2020 Geothermal Rising industry survey and Matek (2016). Net capacities and mean net generation are from the U.S. immediately preceding project completion. Three are Energy Information Administration (EIA 2019a, 2019b). • California and Nevada contribute more than 90% of located in Nevada, and two are in California. the current U.S. geothermal power generation, with • From November 2019 through September 2020, nine additional contributions from plants in Alaska, Hawaii, new geothermal Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah. have been signed across four states (Figure ES-2). • From the end of 2015 through the end of 2019, the Included in these agreements are plans for the first two United States brought seven new geothermal power geothermal power plants to be built in California in a plants online in Nevada, California, and New Mexico, decade—Hell’s Kitchen and Casa Diablo IV. adding 186 MW of nameplate capacity. In the same • Geothermal power provides several non-cost time period, 11 plants were retired or classified as non- advantages, including supplying continuous baseload operational, subtracting 103 MW of nameplate capacity. power, ancillary grid services, resilience, environmental The remaining difference in capacity from 2015 to 2019 benefits, and a small land footprint compared to other can be attributed to the reduction of nameplate capacity renewable energy technologies. at individual plants. • Twenty-eight states have renewable portfolio • After the data for this report were collected, Ormat standards (RPS) that count geothermal power as an brought the Steamboat Hills expansion in Nevada eligible resource, seven of which include direct use. online, increasing its generating capacity by 19 MW. RPSs support geothermal development by requiring a In addition, in late 2020, the Puna geothermal plant was certain amount of electricity sold by utilities to come from brought back online, which should increase geothermal