# 2015 Annual U.S. & Globa l Geothermal

Power Production Re port

### Contents

Geothermal Power Industry Highlights

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4

International

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4

United States

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4

Methodology and Terms

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 5

Geothermal Resource Types and Their Definitions for U.S. Projects

................................ ....................... 5

Tracking Projects through the Development Timeline

................................ ................................ ......... 6

Planned Capacity Addition (PCA) and Resource Capacity

................................ ................................ ..... 6

Geothermal Resource Types and Their Definitions for Global Projects

................................ ................... 6

International Geothermal Power Update

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 8

U.S. Geothermal Power Update

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12

Market Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12

Developing Projects

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 13

Global T echnology and Manufacturing Update

................................ ................................ .......................... 15

Appendix 1: U.S. Developing Project List

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 18

Appendix 2: New Power Plants to Come Online in 2014

................................ ................................ ............ 20

References

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 21



### Written and Prepared by Benjamin Matek , Geothermal Energy Association February 2015

Acknowledgments :

GEA would like to sincerely thank its member companies, as well as other organiza tions and individuals, for their cooperation and assistance in gathering the information used in this report. GEA would also like to thank members of its Science and Technology Committee for reviewing this publication before
release

.

GEA would like to thank Sam Abraham for contributing his beautif ul photography for use in this publication.

Cover Page Top & Bottom Left: Menengai , Kenya ; courtesy of Sam Abraham Cover Page Bottom Right : Salton Sea Geothermal Resource Area, California ; courtesy of Cal Ener gyPlease Note: The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this report are entirely those of the author and sho uld

not be attributed in any manner to the Geothermal Energy Association, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Directors. The Geothermal Energy Association does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publicatio n and accepts no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of its use. Any reference to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply an endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by GEA. GEA does not assume, and hereby disclaims, any liability that may result from any relian ce on or use of any information contained in this publication, or for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions in this publication

.

### Geothermal Power Industry Highlights

International

 GEA data shows a total of 2 1 new po wer plants came online in 2014 adding about ~ 610 MW of
new capacity to electricity grids globally. According to GEA statistics this is the most capacity to
come online in one year since 1997.

 This is the third year in a row the global geothermal industry has sustained a growth rate of 5%

.

 The global market is at about 12.8 GW of operating capacity as of January 2015, spread across

24 countries.

 This year the global geothermal market was developing about 11.5

- 12.3 GW of planned capacity
spread across 80 countries

.

 Based on current d ata the global geothermal industry is expected to reach between 14.5 GW

and 17.6 GW by 2020.

 Overall if all countries follow through on their geothermal power development goals and targets
the global market could reach 27

- 30 GW by the early 2030s

.

 Flash te chnologies, including double and triple flash, make up a little less than two thirds of the global market (58%) , w hile dry steam is about a quarter (26%) and binary is a remaining 15%.
The last remaining 1% includes back pressure and other developing and e xperi mental types of
geothermal technologies

.

 The United Nations this year formed a Global Geothermal Alliance . This alliance wa s signed by

23 countries . The alliance is a partnership platform among gove rnments for working to reduce
the investment risks associated with exploratory drilling, along with the associated costs

, which

ha ve constituted a main obstacle to geothermal power expansion and offers

.

 The World Bank estimates as many as 40 countries could meet a large proportion of their
electricity demand through geothermal power

.

 C ommunities and governments around the world have on ly tapped 6.5% of the total global
potential for geothermal power base d on current geologic knowledge and technology.

 Since 2005, over 160 geothermal power projects have been built adding an additional 4 GW to

elect ricity grids across the globe.

United S tates

 The U.S. industry had about 3.5 GW of installed nameplate capacity and 2.7 1 GW of net capacity

at the end of 2014.

 In total the U.S. market had about 1,250 MW of geothermal power under dev elopment with

about 500 MW stalled in Phase 3 waiting for power purchase agreements ( PPAs ) . These are
projects that could be br ought online in 17

- 33 months, or sooner with the appropriate power

contracts.

 Since 2005, the United States has built over 38 geothermal power projects adding nearly 700

MW to the U.S. el ectricity capacity

.

### Methodology and Terms

To increase the accuracy and value of information presented in its annual U

. S

. Geothermal Power Production and Development Report, the Geothermal Energy Association (GEA) developed a reporting system known as t he Geothermal Reporting Terms and Definitions in 2010. The Geothermal Reporting Terms and Definitions serve as a guideline to project developers in reporting geothe rmal project development information to the GEA. A basic understanding of the Geothermal Reporting Terms and Definitions will also aid the reader in fully understanding the information presented in this annual
report.

The Geothermal Reporting Terms and D efinitions serve to increase reporting clarity and accuracy by providing industry and the public with a lexicon of definitions relating to the types of different geothermal projects, and a guideline for determining which phase of development a geothermal

r esource is in. These two tools help to characterize resource development by type and technology. They also help to determine a geothermal project’s position in the typica l project development timeline.

Geothermal Resource Types and Their Definitions for U.S. Projects In reporting a project in development to the GEA, the developer of a geothermal resource is asked to indicate which of the following definitions the project falls under:

Conventional Hydrothermal (Unproduced Resource): the development of a geothermal resource where levels of geothermal reservoir temperature and reservoir flow capacity are naturally sufficient to produce electricity and where development of the geothermal reservoir has not previously occurred to the extent that it supported t he operation of geothermal power plant(s). Such a project will be labeled as “CH Unproduced” in this report.

Conventional Hydrothermal (Produced Resource): the development of a geothermal resource where levels of geothermal reservoir temperature and re servoir flow capacity are naturally sufficient to produce electricity and where development of the geothermal reservoir has previously occurred to the extent that it currently supports or has supported the operation of geothermal power plant(s). Such a

pr oject will be labeled as “CH Produced” in this report.

Conventional Hydrothermal Expansion: the expansion of an existing geothermal power plant and its associated drilled area so as to increase the level of power that the power plant produces. Such a

p roject will be labeled as “CH Expansion” in this report.

Geothermal Energy and Hydrocarbon Co

- production: the utilization of produced fluids resulting from oil and/or gas

- field development for the production of geothermal power. Such a project will be l abeled
as “Co

- production” in this report.

Geopressured Systems: the utilization of kinetic energy, hydrothermal energy, and energy produced from the associated gas resulting from geopressured gas development to produce geothermal electricity. Such proje cts will be labeled as “Geopressure” in this report.

Enhanced Geothermal Systems: the development of a geothermal system

, where the natural flow capacity of the system is not sufficient to support adequate power production but where hydraulic fracturing of the system can allow production at a commercial level. Such a project will be la beled as “EGS” in this report.Tracking Projects through the Development Timeline

In addition to defining their projects according to the above list of definitions, GEA also asks developers
to indicate projects’ current status in the project development timeline using a four

- phase system. This
system captu res how much and what type of work has been performed on that particular geothermal resource up until the present time. These four phases of project development are:

Phase I: Resource Procurement and Identification Phase II: Resource Explo ration and Confirmation Phase III: Permitting and Initial Development
Phase IV: Resource Production and Power Plant Construction

Each of the four phases of project development is comprised of three separate sections, each of which contains phase sub

- cri teria. The three separate sections of sub

- criteria are resource development, transmission development, and external development (acquiring access to land, permitting, signing PPAs and EPC contracts, securing a portion of project financing, etc.). For a p roject to be considered as being in any particular phase of development a combination of sub

- criteria, specific to each individu al project phase, must be met.

Planned Capacity Addition (PCA) and Resource Capacity Finally, at each phase of a project’s devel opment a geothermal developer has the opportunity to report two project capacity estimates: a Resource Capacity estimate and a Planned Capacity Addition (PCA) estimate. At each project phase the geothermal resource capacity estimate may be thought of as the megawatt (MW) value of the total recoverable energy of the subsurface geothermal resource. It should not be confused with the PCA estimate, which is defined as the portion of a geothermal resource that “if the developer were to utilize the geothermal resource under its control to produce electricity via a geothermal power plant . . . would be the power plant ’ s estimated installed capacity.” In other words, the PCA estimate is usually the power plant’s expected estimated installed capacity. In the cas e of an expansion to a conventional hydrothermal geothermal plant, the PCA estimate would be the estimated capacity to be added to the plant’s current installed capacity. In each phase of development the resource and installed capacity estimates are given different titles that reflect the level of certainty of successful project completion. The different titles as they correspond to the separate phases are as
follows:

Phase I: “Possible Resource Estimate” and “Possible PCA Estimate”
Phase II: “Possibl e Resource Estimate” and “Possible PCA Estimate”
Phase III: “Delineated Resource Estimate” and “Delineated PCA Estimate”
Phase IV: “Confirmed Resource Estimate” and “Confirmed PCA Estimate”

This section outlines how the Geothermal Reporting Terms and Definitions influence the reporting and presentation of project in development information in this report. For a detailed explanation of each phase of development and the outline of its sub

- crit eria please consult GEA’s Geothermal Reporting
Terms and Definitions

.
Geothermal Resource Types and Their Definitions for Global Projects While projects in the GEA’s Annual U.S. Geothermal Power Production and Development Report are defined by several phases of development (Prospect and Phase s 1

- 4) as defined by GEA’s 2010 New

G eothermal Terms and Definitions , this report uses much broader terms to define where a project tracks in its development because of the vastly different development models to construct geothermalpower plants outside the U.S . These terms include Prospect, Early Stage, Under Construction, On Hold,

Canceled, and Operational. The breadth and diversity of geothermal project tracking throughout the world makes labeling projects under a specific Phase incredibly difficult. Therefore, for the purposes of
this re port, projects are defined by much broader categories in order to maintain the integrity of the information regarding a project’s forward progress.

Geothermal ‘ Prospects’ are defined to be areas in which little exploration has taken place, and the country’s government has tendered the property to a private company, government agency or contractor to conduct further exploration. Although geophysical features or prior explor ation might indicate the presence of a geothermal resource at the site, past exploration may not have determined the economic feasibility of a geothermal power plant at the property tendered.

‘Early Stage’ projects are defined to be projects where som e aspects of a resource are identified and the initial stages of explorations and construction are underway. This term could mean but is not limited to, the first exploratio n wells drilled, project funded , and/or significant knowledge of the geothermal

re source attained.

Projects ‘Under Construction’ are projects where physical work to build the actual power plant has begun. M any definitions of ‘Under Construction’ do include production drilling. However, GEA looks at the projects on a case by case basis to determine if production drilling is enough to determine ‘Under
Construction’ status. B ased on the available information

, s ometimes a project must begin physical work on the power plant to be considered in this stage of development

. ‘Under Construction’ is roughly equivalent to GEA’s Phase 4 of a project’s development but may contain elements of Phase 3 depending on the geothermal market and location of the plant

.

‘Operational’ plants are contributing electricity to a customer who agreed to purchase the power prior to the plant’s construction. ‘Under Construction’ and ‘Operational’ are determined by information reported publically on company websites, press releases, government or academic reports, or media articles, interviews with company representativ es , or other public sources of information.

Projects ‘On Hold’ are when forward progress on the projects has halted for any number of reasons not limited to land or religious disputes, loss of project funding, or an agreement that fell apart.

Projects ‘C anceled’ are projects where the government, project developer, or contractor decided to make no more forward progress on a geothermal project in the immediate future and withdrew from developing that geothermal prospect into a power plant.

For this report , GEA collected two numbers for each project in cases where both were available: a “Resource Capacity Estimate” and a “Planned Capacity Addition” (PCA) estimate. At each project phase the geothermal resource capacity estimate may be thought of as the mega watt value of the total recoverable energy of the s ubsurface geothermal resource. It should not be confused with the PCA estimate, which is the portion of a geothermal resource that would be the power plant ’ s resulting estimated installed capacity if the d eveloper were to utilize the geothermal resource under its control to produce electricity. In other words, the PCA estimate is usually the power plant’s expected installed or nameplate capacity. In the case of an expansion to a conventional hydrothermal g eothermal plant, the PCA estimate would be the estimated capacity to be added to the plant’s current installed capacity.

### International Geothermal Power Update
Figure 1 : International Geothermal Power Nameplate Capacity (MW)

Note: PCA (Planned Capacity Additions), pilot plants and utility scale geothermal plants built in the first half of the 20th century
and then decommissioned are not included in the above time series.

Geothermal power industry global in 2014 sustained a 5% growth rate for the third year in a row. The world market reached upwards of 12.8 GW (gigawatts) of geothermal power operational throughout 24 countries. The majority of this new capacity became operational in Turkey, Kenya, Indonesia, a nd the
Phil ippines with a total of about 610 MW of new power brought online in 2014. As of the end of 2014,
there are also 11.5

- 12.3 GW of capacity additions in 80 countries and 630 projects

. Fourteen of those 80

countries are expected to bring 2 GW of power online over the next 3

- 4 years based on current

construction

. Looking at projects in the pipeline, it is expected that the geothermal industry will continue to grow at a steady pace globally. The longer development time frames of geothermal pr ojects
make them somewhat more immune to the booms and busts of the global energy space.

GEA forecasts the global market will reach between 14.5 to 17.6 GW by 2020. The 14.5 GW forecast is comprised of announced completion dates of plants already under co nstruction , therefore, extremely

conservative

. Since projects normally take about 2

- 3 years to construct

, and the forecast goes out five years, more projects will likely announce construction over the next year or two , increasing the tail end
of this forec ast

. The 17.6 GW forecast, is much more likely. This number is comprised of plants with announced completion dates and/or under construction. This growth will come from European, East African, and South Pacific markets as these regions lead geothermal’ s g rowth by substantial capacity additions in the next five years.

This growth supported by the World Bank and other multi

- lateral organizations focused on early risk mitigation. For example, the World B ank’s Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) has mobilized $235 million through the Clean Technology Fund toward scaling up geothermal energy. This is part of their Global Geothermal Development Plan (GGDP). Projects identified in Latin Americ a including Mexico, Chile, Nicaragua, Dominica and St

. Lucia and the Caribbean are expected to or already received 14.5 GW

12.8 GW 17.6 GW

- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 Megawatts

Current Geothermal Power Capacity

Potential Capacity Additions of Plants Under Construction Potential Capacity Additions of Plants with Announced Completion Datesfunding from this program to move projects forward. To date, ESMAP has identified 36 geothermal

fields in 16 countries where surface explorat ion has been completed and additional financing is needed in the near future to confirm the commercial viability of geothermal resources. ESMAP also estimates as many as 40 countries could meet a large proportion of their electricity demand through geother mal

power. 2

Meanwhile, governments around the world implemented policies to increase renewable domestic electricity g eneration as part of the solution toward lowering the emissions that contribute to global warming. The result was expanded geothermal production and development across the globe , and based on the additional projects already in process, it looks like the trajectory will continue for at least
another decade.

For example the United Nation s this year formed a Global Geothermal Alliance signed by 23 countrie s

. This alliance will work to reduce the investment risks associated with exploratory drilling along with the
associated costs which ha ve constituted a main obstacle to geothermal power e xpansion . The Alliance offers a partnership platform among governments, international financing institutions, private sector investors and other stakeholders to provide customized support in addressing key challenges.

Geothermal power has continued to hea t up in Latin America and several countries have set national geothermal goals. For example, El Salvador plans 40% of energy to come from geothermal power by

2020 . Mexico wants to get 35% of its energy from renewables including geothermal power. Nicaragua plans to build another 100 MW in the next 15 years. Others such as Costa R ica and Guatemala have not

set a specific geothermal goal but already have several plants under construction.

East Africa is another regional hotbed for activity. Kenya, Rwanda, Eth iopia and Tanzania all have set geothermal power goals. While not making the chart (Figure 2) below, Ethiopia plans to have an
additional 1

, 000 MW built by the early 2020s ; the country’s Corbetti geothermal field , one of the largest
in the world

, is curren tly under development. Meanwhile Tanzania plans to build 180 MW over the next few years

. Overall if all countries follow through on their geothermal power goals the global industry
could reach 27

- 30 GW by the early 2030s.

Many important geothermal markets have announced development goals. Some are more realistic than others; Indonesia seems unlikely to reach the goal set several years ago due to reports of permitting delays. Still, it is likely that many of these resources will be developed by the 2 030s and the increasing importance of developing clean energy sources to combat climate change globally is expected to contribute to the demand for new geothermal power plants globally through the 2030s.

Figures 3 and 4 depict estimated current nameplate capacity by country. According to GEA research, new power plants came online in the U.S., the Philippines, Mexico, Germany, Kenya, and Turkey in 2014. Kenya, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Germany are quickly developing geothermal power infrastructure. In
addition , it is likely within the next decade or so the Philippines, Indonesia or the European Union could
each rou ghly equal the U.S. in installed capacity. By looking at projects in the pipeline, other smaller countries are likely to become more established geot hermal power markets as the percentages of their power from geothermal resources increase due to increased development.

Figure 5 depicts developing capacity of geothermal power projects by country and by amount of projects for select countries that are de veloping 50 MW or more according to GEA data. Several characteristics affect the amount of power or projects a country is developing, including but not limitedAnnual U.S. & Global Geothermal Power Production Report February 2015

10 to its climate goals, its size, discovered resources, amount of geothermal leases made available to developers and the structure of a country’s power market.

Figure 2 : Important Geothermal Markets Announced P lanned C apacity A dditions & Targets

Note: “Nearterm Goals” includes government and private sector development goals. Mexico has set a general renewable energy goal of 3 5% of generation from renewables by 2024; however, this goal is not geothermal specific. The U.S. goal is Imperial Irrigational District’s objective of building out geothermal capacity at the Salton Sea Resource Area by 2032.

According to estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reflect ing current geologic knowledge

, there are 200 GW of traditional hydrothermal geothermal resources identified globally

. Therefore

, communities and governments around the world have only tapped 6.5% of the total global potential for geothermal power based on current geologic knowledge. 3

Figure 3 : Established Geothermal Power Markets Installed Capacity (MW) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Megawatts

Installed Capacity Announced Developing Capacity Annnounced Nearterm Geothermal Goals

3525

1915

1380

1005 970 940 660 600 540 410 210 205

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

United States Philippines Indonesia Mexico New Zealand Italy Iceland Kenya Japan Turkey Costa Rica El SalvadorAnnual U.S. & Global Geothermal Power Production Report February 2015

11 Figure 4 : Developing Geothermal Power Markets Installed Nameplate Capacity (MW)

Note: Estimates on data labels for Figure 3 & 4 are rounded to the nearest ‘5’ MWs and ‘nameplate c apacity ’ is often used to derive these estimates but also ‘net c apacity ’ is used when n ameplate is not available

.

Figure 5 : Devel oping Projects and Capacity by Country or Territory

Note: A full international project list is published in conjunction with this report . The extraordinary amount of developi ng capacity for Indonesia could possibly be the result of the backlog of projects in the country stalled by prolonged PPA negotiations, delayed permits related to the usage of conservation or protected areas and resistance from local residents.

110

95

55

45

30 25 25

15 8 1 1 0.3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Nicaragua Russia Papua New Guinea Guatemala Portugal China Germany Guadeloupe Ethiopia Austria Australia Thailand

3 7 6 12

5 6 8 19

4 4 7 3 59

8 5 16 29 59

22 83

10 62

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Bolivia Djibouti Argentina Australia Nicaragua Vietnam India Germany Columbia Costa Rica Guatemala Armenia Chile Mexico New Zealand Iceland Philippines Turkey Kenya United States Ethiopia Indonesia Number of Projects Developing Megawatts

Developing MW Number of ProjectsAnnual U.S. & Global Geothermal Power Production Report February 2015

12 

### U.S. Geothermal Power Update

Market Summary

Overall the U.S. market hover s just over 3.5 GW of operating nameplate capacity and just over 2.7 GW of net capacity . While this number is higher than previous year estimates

, only a couple MW of new geothermal power came online in 2014. The revised upward estimate is a reflection of G EA’s efforts to synchronize old data with government and international sources such as the International Energy Agency and the U.S. Energy Information Administration , in addition to new data from several of our member companies . Previous operating capacity data in GEA’s data base proved to be out of date and
was revised

.

Figure 6 : U.S. Industry Geothermal Nameplate & Net Capacity

Note: PCA (Planned Capacity Additions), pilot plants and utility scale geothermal plants built in the first half of the 20th century
and then decommissioned are not included in the above time series.

Source: GEA & EIA 4

In total the U.S. market had about 1,250 MW of geothermal power under development with about 500

MW stuck in Phase 3 waiting for PPAs. These are projects that could be brought online in 17

- 33 months

,
or sooner with the appropriate power contracts. The expansion of the U.S. geothermal secto r was hindered by little growth in demand for new power, legislative uncertainty about the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and unbalanced mechanism s for valuing baseload power and integration costs in California (where a signifi cant amount of U.S. geothermal resources are located). As a result, the U.S. market did not expand or grow in 2014 with the exception of a small plant
in California.

In 2014, some speculate projects paused as developers waited to se e the results of the PT C/ITC debates in Washington D.C

. Unfortunately, the legislation that did pass created more adversity for the industry - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Nameplate Capacity Summer Net Capacity Winter Net Capacity PTC, ITC, RPS(s)

CA’s GRDA PURPA Industry Coupled

Case
Studies GRED I, II, IIIAnnual U.S. & Global Geothermal Power Production Report February 2015

13 than did it relieve any financial burdens as Congress only extended the PTC tax credit for several weeks
until the end of 2014 . What did happen this year was a significant amount of consolidating and restructuring in the U.S. geothermal market as com panies wait for better times or restructure themselves in stronger positions. Several smaller geothermal developers were purchased by larger

ge othermal power companies as companies sought to better position themselves. For example, U.S. Geothermal ( HTM ) purchased Earth Power Resources

, and Ormat ( ORA ) purchase d the remaining

American geothermal projects from Alternative Earth Resources. Other companies began to sell o f f their remaining U.S. assets and focus efforts on overseas projects

, where the geothermal market is booming. Alterra ( MGMXF ) sold its operating Soda Lake plant to Cyrq Energy and Ram Power ( RPG ) sold its developing geothermal field at T he Geysers to U.S. Geothermal ( HTM )

.

Des pite the flat growth , there are policies that could create new opportunities for geothermal power i n the western states, for example if enacted, Governor Jerry Brown’s announcement of a 50% RPS goal for
California

. Governor Brown also signed into law A.B. 2363 earlier in 2014 which will require the California Public Utilities Commission to establish the appropriate adders (integration cost) for each technology that must be used when evaluating bids for long term whole sale power contracts. The geothermal ind ustry is hopeful this bill will add the appropriate costs to intermittent power sources due to their variable deliverability

, so base load renewable s like geothermal and b iomass power can compete for PPAs with Investor Owned Utilities on a more accurate com parison of the full cost for power. Some believed this to be one reason why geothermal companies were not winning as many contracts in California in the past.

At the federal level, the geothermal industry will be closely watching the results of the EPA C lean Power Plant rule final result. If this rule is successfully implemented, states which contain geothermal resources but have not developed them yet may consider developing their geothermal resources to meet carbon reduction requirements.

Despite the slow growth development

- wise, in terms of new geothermal technologies, the U.S.
continued to be a world leader and innovator. Department of Energy’s Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) continues to make advancements on mineral extraction and recovery from geothermal power plants. GTO spent $4 million in 2014 to assist in developing technologies for mineral recovery from low

to moderate

- temperature geothermal resources. Geothermal brine has the potential to contain relatively high concentrations of rare ea rths and other valuable materials.

GTO also launched its The Frontier Observatory for Research in Geot hermal Energy (FORGE)

. The Observatory will be a research site in the United States that allows scientists and engineers to develop and test new technologies for Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS).The purpose of FORGE is to accelerate cutting

- edge geothermal research that, by the conclusion of the project, could lead to replicable, commercial pathways to EGS and the growth of geothermal energy in more regions of the
United States.



### Developing Projects
As shown in Figure 8, t he amount of developing geothermal projects fell in recent years partly d ue to projects reaching completion and to the industry consolidation discussed in earlier section. Some companies report ed to GEA they are returning federal or state leases on sites they have deemed uneconomical to develop at this time

, though they may be re visit ed in the futur e when market conditions change

. The economics of a geothermal power project resemble that of mining or an oil and gas project more closely than other renewables such as wind and solar. Geothermal resources need toAnnual U.S. & Global Geothermal Power Production Report February 2015

14 be discovered, drilled for, and extracted. Therefore, when leases are returned it doesn’t necessarily mean the industry is shrinking. Purchasing and returning leases is a normal exploration cycle that geothermal developers go through as they search for prime geothermal r esources. Holding onto geothermal leases costs money . It may be more economical in the long return to return a lease and revisit that property at a later date when market conditions change.

Figure 7 : De veloping Planned Capacity Additions & Nameplate Capacity by State

Note: Planned Capacity Additions (PCA) is the power plants estimated installed capacity.

Figure 8 : Number of Developing Projects by State

Note: In the past few years, demonstration and exploration projects have occurred in additional states such as Washington, Texas, North Dakota, Louisiana, Montana, Mississippi, and Wyoming. 88 855

5 10 0 20 168 99 24 6 18 2760

0 1 47 77 580

35 0 4 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Planned Capacity Additions (MW) Installed (Nameplate) Capacity

4 16

1 2 2 11 23

16

5

1 7 25

1 5 2 13 45

19

3 0 0 10 20 30 40 50

2015 2014Annual U.S. & Global Geothermal Power Production Report February 2015

15 

### Global Technology and Manufacturing Update

The types of conventional ge othermal power technologies are: dry steam, flash and binary. The technology of choice for a geothermal power plant depends on the characteristics of the geothermal resources. Binary p l ants are used with lower temperature resources while flash and dry stea m plants are used with higher temperature resources. Flash and dry steam technologies continue to be the more prevalent and the most developed. Flash technologies, including double and triple flash, make up a little less than two thirds of the global market (58%) , w hile dry steam is about a quarter (26%) and binary is a remaining 15%. The last remaining 1% includes back pressure and other developing types of geo thermal technologies. Figure 9 shows the change in the geothermal power market by turbine technology over

time. Figure 9 : Operating Capacity by Technology Type

In general

, the geothermal t urbine market has several companies who provide equipment for higher
temperature project s ; these companies include Toshiba, Mitsubishi, and Fuji. T he lower temperature Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) market is mostly accounted for by one manufacturer , Ormat Technologies Inc. ( ORA ) . S everal smaller manufacture s of ORC technologies just began to enter the geothermal
market recently or are capitalizing on specific niches. For example, Ormat has provided the turb ines for
about 85% of the ORC market. Meanwhile, Exergy has recently entered the geothermal ORC market signing nearly a dozen turbine deals over the last few years

. Lastly i n the niche geothermal market

, ElectraT herm continue s to be one of the leaders in designs for co

- produced fluids geothermal fac ilities.

Figure s 10

, 11 , and 12 display some of the lates t GEA data on the geothermal equipment supplier s market by project and by MW . Toshiba provided nearly a quarter of the global equipment in MWs. Ormat has provided equipment to substantially more projects than nearly any other company but these
are often sm aller binary projects ; thus their MW count is smaller. In total when looking at the global
turbin e market by MWs, the leaders are Toshiba (24%), Mitsubishi (21%), Fuji (20%) and Ormat (13%).

- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 Installed Capacity (MW)

Single Flash Dry Steam Double Flash Binary Triple Flash Back Pressure EGSAnnual U.S. & Global Geothermal Power Production Report February 2015

16 Figure 10 : Major Geothermal Equipment Suppliers Megawatts Operating and Project Count

Other geothermal equipment providers who don’t have enough capacity to fit onto this chart or have only just entered the geothermal market include but are not limited to: Kaluga Turbine, Turboden, A tlas Copco/Mafi Trench, ElectraT herm, Elliot Turbomachinery, Exergy, Pratt & Whitney and Siemens.

In general, GEA expects that the binary market will continue to grow substantially in tandem with the flash and dry steam market s . In Europe and the U.S., binary projects are th e main power plant type
under construction w hile regions such as East Africa and the South Pacific have numerous flash and dry

steam plants under development. Other countries in places such as South and Cent ral America have only start ed exploring and studying their geothermal resources

, but it i s expected these regions will develop a diverse mix of bina ry, flash and dry steam projects

. In conclusion, t here are significant geothermal resources under development across the temperature sp ectrum in many regions around the
world. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Projects Operating Megawatts Operating

MWs Operating Estimated Project CountAnnual U.S. & Global Geothermal Power Production Report February 2015

17 Figure 11 : Geothermal Equipment Suppliers as Percent of Global Market by Projects



### Figure 12 : Geothermal Equipment Suppliers as Percent of Global Market by MW Mitsubishi

, 18%

Ormat

, 26%

Toshiba

, 9% Fuji

, 14% Ansaldo/Tosi

, 10% General
Electric

, 5% TAS Energy

, 2% Alstom

, 3% Other

, 14%

Mitsubishi

, 21%

Ormat

, 13%

Toshiba

, 24% Fuji

, 20% Ansaldo/Tosi

, 9% General

Electric

, 6% TAS Energy

, 1% Alstom

, 2%

Other

, 3%Annual U.S. & Global Geothermal Power Production Report February 2015

18 

### Appendix 1: U.S. Developing Project List

Project Name Developer Estimated Capacity (MW) Location (State, County) Project Phase

Walker Ranch Agua Caliente, LLC 30 ID, Cassia Phase 3 Bottle Rock Expansion Bottle Rock Power 55 CA, Lake Phase 1
Black Rock 1

- 2 CalEnergy 159 CA, Imperial Phase 3
Black Rock 5

- 6 CalEnergy 235 CA, Imperial Phase 3
Wildhorse Calpine 48 CA, Sonoma Phase 1
Four Mile Hill Calpine 55 CA, Siskiyou N/A Telephone Fiat Calpine 55 CA, Siskiyou N/A Buckeye North Geysers Calpine 57 CA, Lake N/A
Glass Mountain Calpine

- CA Phase 1
Akutan Geothermal Project City of Akutan 10 AK, Aleutians East Borough Phase 2

City of Aspen Geothermal Project City of Aspen

- CO, Pitkin Phase 2

Lightning Doc 2 Cyrq Energy 6 NM, Hidalgo Phase 2
Abraham Cyrq Energy

- UT, Millard Prospect
Alvord Cyrq Energy

- OR, Harney phase 1
Cricket Cyrq Energy

- UT, Millard prospect DeArmand Cyrq Energy

- UT, Iron Prospect
Drum Mountain Cyrq Energy

- UT, Millard Prospect
Klamath Plant Cyrq Energy

- OR, Klamath Phase 2

Pavant Cyrq Energy

- UT, Millard Prospect
Thermo 2 Cyrq Energy

- UT, Beaver Phase 1
Thermo 3 Cyrq Energy

- UT, Beaver Phase 1
Thermo 4 Cyrq Energy

- UT, Beaver Phase 1
Thermo Central Cyrq Energy

- UT, Beaver Prospect
Thermo Greater Cyrq Energy

- UT, Beaver Prospect Newberry Davenport Newberry

Holdings/AltaRock Energy - OR, Deschutes Phase 2

Harmon Lake Enel North America 15 NV, Churchill Phase 1 Surprise Valley Enel North America 15 CA, Modoc Phase 2

Cove Fort 2 Enel North America 20 UT, Beaver, Millard Phase 1 Imperial Wells Power EnergySource 85 CA, Imperial Phase 1
Lower Klamath Wildlife Refuge Entiv Organic Energy 5 CA, Siskiyou Phase 2

Klamath Hills Entiv Organic Energy 8 OR, Klamath Phase 2 Apache County Project GreenFire Energy 5 AZ, Apache Phase 1
Olene KBG Klamath Basin Geopower 25 OR, Klamath Phase 3 Olene Gap Kodali, Inc. 17 OR, Klamath Phase 2
Kodali Raft River Kodali, Inc.

- ID, Cassia Prospect
Gerlach Power Kodali, Inc.

- NV, Washoe Phase 1 Kodali Dixie Valley 2 Kodali, Inc.

- NV, Churchill Prospect Kodali Dixie Valley 1 Kodali, Inc.

- NV, Churchill Prospect Desert Queen Magma Energy (U.S.) Corp - NV, Churchill Phase 1

Granite Springs Magma Energy (U.S.) Corp - NV, Pershing Phase 1

McCoy Magma Energy (U.S.) Corp - NV, Churchill, Lander Phase 1

Soda Lake East Magma Energy (U.S.) Corp - NV, Churchill Prospect

Soda Lake South Magma Energy (U.S.) Corp - NV, Churchill Phase 1

Ponc h a Hot Springs Mt Princeton Geothermal

LLC 10 CO, Chaffee Phase 2

Mt Princeton Mt Princeton Geothermal

LLC 10 CO, Chaffee Phase 2

OM Power OM Power 1, LLC. 11 OR, Klamath Phase 3
Goose Lake Ormat Nevada Inc.

- OR, Lake Prospect
Carson Lake Ormat Nevada Inc.

- NV, Churchill Phase 2 CD4 (Mammoth Complex) Ormat Nevada Inc.

- CA, Mono Phase 2

Kula Ormat Nevada Inc.

- HI, Big Island Prospect Midnight Point Ormat Nevada Inc.

- OR, Lake Phase 2Annual U.S. & Global Geothermal Power Production Report February 2015

19 Dixie Meadows Ormat Nevada Inc.

- NV, Churchill Phase 2
Truckhaven Ormat Nevada Inc. 30 CA, Imperial Phase 1 Mount Spurr Ormat Nevada Inc.

- AK Phase 1
McGinness Hills Expansion Ormat Nevada Inc. 24 NV Phase 4

North Valley Ormat Nevada Inc. 55 NV, Washoe, Churchill Prospect Agua Quieta Ormat Nevada Inc.

- NV, Churchill Phase 1 Argenta Ormat Nevada Inc.

- NV, Lander Prospect
Silver Lake Ormat Nevada Inc.

- OR, Lake Prospect Twilight Ormat Nevada Inc.

- OR, Deschutes Phase 2 Ulupalakua (Maui) Ormat Nevada Inc.

- HI, Maui Phase 1 Foley Hot Springs Ormat Nevada Inc.

- OR, Lane Phase 1
Summer Lake Ormat Nevada Inc.

- OR, Lake Phase 1 Tungsten Mountain Ormat Nevada Inc.

- NV, Churchill Phase 2 Crump Geyser Ormat Nevada Inc. (Crump Geothermal Company, LLC) 10 OR, Lake Phase 2

Wister

- Phase I Ormat Nevada Inc. 30 CA, Imperial Phase 2

Tuscarora

- Phase 2 Ormat Nevada Inc.

- NV, Elko Phase 2 Pagosa Waters Pagisa Verde 4 CO, Archuleta Phase 2 Calipatria: Mineral Extraction Facility Simbol Materials

- CA, Imperial Phase 4

Town of Rico Project Town of Rico

- CO, Dolores Prospect Geysers Project (aka WGP Geysers) U.S. Geothermal 26 CA, Sonoma Phase 3

Lee Hot Springs U.S. Geothermal

- NV, Churchill Phase 1
Raft River Unit II U.S. Geothermal 26 ID, Cassia Phase 2 Hot Springs Point (Crescent Valley) U.S. Geothermal

- NV, Eureka Phase 1

San Emidio Phase III U.S. Geothermal 17 NV, Washoe Phase 1
Vale Butte U.S. Geothermal

- OR, Malheur Prospect Neal Hot Springs II U.S. Geothermal 28 OR Phase 2
Gerlach U.S. Geothermal 18 NV, Washoe Phase 2
San Emidio Phase II U.S. Geothermal 11 NV, Washoe Phase 3
Raft River Unit III U.S. Geothermal 32 ID, Cassia Phase 1
Granite Creek U.S. Geothermal

- NV, Washoe Phase 1 UND Coproduction University of North
Dakota 0.25 CA, Imperial Phase 1

UND Low Temp Project University of North
Dakota 0.35 ND, Stark Phase 1

Note: This list is accurate as of Januar y 2015

. Some of the P hase 4 projects may have come online in early 2015Annual U.S. & Global Geothermal Power Production Report February 2015

20 

### Appendix 2: New Power Plants to Come Online in 2014

Country Region Field Plant Nameplate Capacity (MW) Primary Plant

Type Plant Owner

or Operator

United States North America OR

- Klamath
Falls OIT 1.5 Binary Oregon
Institute of Technology

Japan Asia Oguni Town,

Kumamoto Oguni Town 2.0 Single Flash Waita
Geothermal Power Plant,
Chuo Electric

Power Co

Japan Asia Ibusuki Ibus u ki 1.5 Binary Geonext Corporation

Indonesia South Pacific West Java

- Pengalengan Cibuni 2.0 N/A PLTP

** United

States North America CA

- Surprise Valley Paisley

Geothermal 2.0 Binary Surprise Valley Electric Corp.

Germany Europe Taufkirchen/ Oberhaching Taufkirchen/

Oberhaching
Plant 4.3 Binary Daldrup &
Söhne AG

Germany Europe Sauerlach Sauerlach 5.0 Binary SWM

– Stadtwerke
München

Indonesia South Pacific West Java Ulumbu 5.0 Single Flash PLN

Turkey Europe Aydin

Gumuskoy Gumuskoy 1 6.6 Binary BM Enerji

Turkey Europe Aydin

Gumuskoy Gumuskoy 2 6.6 Binary BM Enerji

Turkey Europe Aydin

- Salavatil Dora 3U2 20.0 Binary Menderes A.S.

Kenya Middle

East/Africa Olkaria Olkaria 3 Plant

3 22.0 Binary Ormat

Turkey Europe Manisa

Alesehir TR1 24.0 Binary Zorlu Enerji

Turkey Europe Aydin

Germencik Kerem 3 24.0 Binary Maren Enerji

Turkey Europe Aydin

Germencik Germencik 3 26.0 Binary Guris Holdings

Italy Europe Mt. Amiata

Bagnore Bagnore 4 40.0 Single Flash Enel Green

Power

Kenya Middle

East/Africa Olkaria Olkaria 2 Plant

3 35.6 Single Flash KenGen

* Philippines South Pacific Southern Negros Nasulo 49.4 Single Flash Energy Development Corporation

Indonesia South Pacific Patuha Unit 1 55.0 Single Flash PT. Geo Dipa Energy

Kenya Middle

East/Africa Olkaria Olkaria I Unit 4 70.0 Single Flash KenGen

Kenya Middle

East/Africa Olkaria Olkaria I Unit 5 70.0 Single Flash KenGen

Kenya Middle

East/Africa Olkaria Olkaria IV 140.0 Single Flash KenGen

Note: Net Capacity is used when Nameplate or Installed Capacity is not available. *This plant was built from equipment salvaged from the North Negros geothermal plant. GEA data was adjusted to reflect the decommissioning of the older plant. **The Paisley project began commissioning but is not fully commercially operational yet.Annual U.S. & Global Geothermal Power Production Report February 2015

21 

### References

1 Energy Information Administration (EIA). “Form EIA

- 860 detailed data.” October 10, 2013. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/ (Accessed January 28 th , 2015)

. 2 The World Bank. “ Geothermal En ergy: Expansion Well Underway in Developing Countries ” December 3, 2014. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/12/ 03/geothermal

- energy

- expansion

- well

- underway

- in

developing

- countries (Accessed February 9th, 2015).

3 Goldstein, B., et al. 2011 : Geothermal Energy

. “ Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation.” Cambridge University Press, Ca mbridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. http://srren.ipcc

wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch04.pdf

4 Energy Information Administration (EIA). “Form EIA

- 860 detailed data.” October 10, 2013

. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/ (Accessed January 28 th , 2015)

.