This data layer contains geothermal resource areas and their technical potential used in long-term electric system modeling for Integrated Resource Planning and SB 100. Geothermal resource areas are delineated by Known Geothermal Resource Areas (KGRAs) (Geothermal Map of California, 2002), other geothermal fields (CalGEM Field Admin Boundaries, 2020), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Geothermal Leasing Areas (California BLM State Office GIS Department, 2010). The fields that are considered in our assessment have enough information known about the geothermal reservoir that an electric generation potential was estimated by USGS (Williams et al. 2008) or estimated by a BLM Environmental Impact Statement (El Centro Field Office, 2007). For the USGS identified geothermal systems, any point that lies within 2 km of a field is summed to represent the total mean electrical generation potential from the entire field.

Geothermal field boundaries are constructed for identified geothermal systems that lie outside of an established geothermal field. A circular footprint is assumed with a radius determined by the area needed to support the mean resource potential estimate, assuming a 10 MW/km² power density.

Several geothermal fields have power plants that are currently generating electricity from the geothermal source. The total production for each geothermal field is estimated by the CA Energy Commission’s Quarterly Fuel and Energy Report that tracks all power plants greater than 1 MW. The nameplate capacity of all generators in operation as of 2021 were used to inform how much of the geothermal fields are currently in use. This source yields inconsistent results for the power plants in the Geysers. Instead, an estimate from the net energy generation from those power plants is used. Using these estimates, the net undeveloped geothermal resource potential can be calculated.

Finally, we apply the protected area layer for geothermal to screen out those geothermal fields that lie entirely within a protected area. The protected area layer is compiled from public and private lands that have special designations prohibiting or not aligning with energy development.

This layer is featured in the CEC 2023 Land-Use Screens for Electric System Planning data viewer.

For more information about this layer and its use in electric system planning, please refer to the Land Use Screens Staff Report in the CEC Energy Planning Library.

Change Log:

Version 1.1 (January 18, 2024)

• ProtectedArea_Exclusion field was updated to correct for the changes to the Protected Area Layer. A Development Focus Area on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land that overlays the Coso Hot Springs allows its resource potential to be considered in the statewide estimate.

Data Dictionary:

Total_MWe_Mean: The estimated resource potential from each geothermal field. All geothermal fields, except for Truckhaven, was given an estimate by Williams et al. 2008. If more than one point resource intersects (within 2km of) the field, the sum of the individual geothermal systems was used to estimate the magnitude of the resource coming from the entire geothermal field. Estimates are given in MW.

Total_QFER_NameplateCapacity: The total nameplate capacities of all generators in operation as of 2021 that intersects (within 2 km of) a geothermal field. The resource potential already in use for the Geysers is determined by Lovekin et al. 2004. Estimates are given in MW.

ProtectedArea_Exclusion: Binary value representing whether a field is excluded by the land-use screen or not. Fields that are excluded have a value of 1; those that aren’t have a value of 0.

NetUndevelopedRP: The net undeveloped resource potential for each geothermal field. This field is determined by subtracting the total resource potential in use (Total_QFER_NameplateCapacity) from the total estimated resource potential (Total_MWe_Mean). Estimates are given in MW.

Acres_GeothermalField: This is the geodesic acreage of each geothermal field. Values are reported in International Acres using a NAD 1983 California (Teale) Albers (Meters) projection.

References:

1. Geothermal Map of California, S-11. California Department of Conservation, 2002. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/geothermal/maps/Pages/index.aspx
2. CalGEM Field Admin Boundaries, 2020. https://gis.conservation.ca.gov/server/rest/services/CalGEM/Admin_Bounds/MapServer
   
3. California BLM State Office GIS Department, California BLM Verified and Potential Geothermal Leases in California, 2010. https://databasin.org/datasets/5ec77a1438ab4402bf09ef9bfd7f04d9/
   
4. Williams, Colin F., Reed, Marshall J., Mariner, Robert H., DeAngelo, Jacob, Galanis, S. Peter, Jr. 2008. "Assessment of moderate- and high-temperature geothermal resources of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008-3082." 4 p. https://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/server/rest/services/geothermal/westus_favoribility_systems/MapServer/0
5. El Centro Field Office, Bureau of Land Management (2007). Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing Area (Publication Index Number: BLM/CA/ES-2007-017+3200). United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management.
6. Lovekin, James W., Subir K. Sanyal, Christopher W. Klein. 2004. “New Geothermal Site Identification and Qualification.” Richmond, California:

Web map of geothermal sites of Alaska. Geothermal Springs: Includes temperature and flow information. Spring location uncertainty and data sources are also included. Geothermal Wells: Location and name onlyVolcanoes: Direct from Volcanoes ServiceThe Geothermal Springs and Wells is derived in part from the Alaska Division of Geologic and Geophysical Survey's previous submissions to the AASG Geothermal Data Repository sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under award DE-EE0002850 to the Arizona Geological Survey acting on behalf of the Association of American State Geologists.Part of project: Geothermal Database

This is a metadata compilation for maps published by Massachusetts Geological Survey as Miscellaneous Map Series M-13-01 through M-13-08 for the Massachusetts Geothermal Energy Project in 2013. The maps inlcude thermal conductivity of bedrock and soil, heat production, inferred heat flow, and temperatures at 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-Km depths.The metadata compilation is published as an Excel workbook containing header features including title, description, author, citation, originator, distributor, and resource URL links to scanned maps (PDFs) for download. The Excel workbook contains contains six worksheets, including information about the template, notes related to revisions of the template, resource provider information, the data, a field list (data mapping view), and vocabularies (data valid terms) used to populate the data worksheet . The metadata was provided by the Massachusetts Geological Survey and made available for distribution through the National Geothermal Data System.

Ground source heat energy, sometimes called shallow geothermal energy, can be collected from the ground and boosted with heat pumps. This can yield up to four times as much energy as is used to collect it, giving ‘four for the price of one’ in energy terms. Heat energy can be harnessed, or ‘collected’, using different types of collector systems:Closed loop collectors are systems where heat is extracted from the ground (or cooling is gained) by pumping a heat exchange fluid through closed pipes within the ground. The pipes can be installed borehole(s) (vertical closed loop) or laid out horizontally (horizontal closed loop).Open loop ground source heat systems operate by taking heat energy from abstracted groundwater using a heat pump. The volume of groundwater that can be abstracted from a borehole or taken from a spring each day (the ‘yield’) determines the total amount of heat energy available, and therefore the size of heat pump that can be used and the size of building that can be heated.The ground source heating/cooling suitability maps indicate which type of ground source heat collector is most compatible with the geology below your site. All maps should be assessed together, since whilst some areas may be unsuitable for one type of ground source heat collector system (‘ground source heat pumps’ or GSHPs), the heat energy can be successfully harnessed by a different type of system. The maps show that there is a shallow geothermal solution for heating or cooling for every location in Ireland.The suitability maps use a suitability rating ranging from 1 (worst) to 5 (best) for each type of heat collector/cooling system. Suitability maps for open loop (domestic/small commercial), open loop (larger commercial/industrial processes) and vertical closed loop systems are available.The Geothermal Open Loop Domestic suitability map and Geothermal Open Loop Commercial suitability map are to the scale 1:100,000. This means it should be viewed at that scale. When printed at that scale 1cm on the map relates to a distance of 1km.The Geothermal Vertical Closed Loop suitability map is to the scale 1:40,000. This means it should be viewed at that scale. When printed at that scale 1cm on the map relates to a distance of 400m.It is a vector dataset. Vector data portray the world using points, lines, and polygons (areas).The data is shown as polygons. Each polygon holds information on: Suitability Class and Suitability Description.

Map represents the calculated (surface) heat-flow density (HFD) in mW/m2 with topographic correction. It is made with data from 119 boreholes from the measured temperatures in the available boreholes and measured thermal conductivity on cored rock samples from the same boreholes. The pattern of the HFD isolines is affected by numerous parameters, particularly the thermal conductivity of rocks, rock permeability and fracturing, fluid content of the rocks, and all are reflected in the measured temperature gradient in the boreholes.

The map application shows the Czech Republic‘s geothermal potential and its limitations. Map layers indicating the temperature distribution (°C) at various depths ranging from 400 m to 5000 m, a map of heat flux distribution (mW.m-2) at the surface, and a map of the thermal conductivity of rocks (W. m-1. K-1) illustrate the geothermal potential. The application also includes thematic layers depicting limitations and conflicts of interest, which are constraints on the use of geothermal energy due to natural hazards (e.g. floodplains, areas with unstable bedrock and prone to landslides), technical constraints on the construction of geothermal installations (existing infrastructure, mining, etc.), and legislative restrictions (protection of nature and water, etc.).

This dataset contains geothermal leases cases derived from Legal Land Descriptions (LLD) contained in the US Bureau of Land Management's, BLM, Mineral and Land Record System(MLRS) and geocoded (mapped) using the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) derived from the most accurate survey data available through BLM Cadastral Survey workforce. Geospatial representations might be missing for some cases that can not be geocoded using the MLRS algorithm. Each case is given a data quality score based on how well it mapped. These can be lumped into seven groups to provide a simplified way to understand the scores.Group 1: Direct PLSS Match. Scores “0”, “1”, “2”, “3” should all have a match to the PLSS data. There are slight differences, but the primary expectation is that these match the PLSS.Group 2: Calculated PLSS Match. Scores “4”, “4.1”, “5”, “6”, “7” and “8” were generated through a process of creating the geometry that is not a direct capture from the PLSS. They represent a best guess based on the underlining PLSSGroup 3 – Mapped to Section. Score of “8.1”, “8.2”, “8.3”, “9” and “10” are mapped to the Section for various reasons (refer to log information in data quality field).Group 4- Combination of mapped and unmapped areas. Score of 15 represents a case that has some portions that would map and others that do not.Group 5 – No NLSDB Geometry, Only Attributes. Scores “11”, “12”, “20”, “21” and “22” do not have a match to the PLSS and no geometry is in the NLSDB, and only attributes exist in the data.Group 6 – Mapped to County. Scores of “25” map to the County.Group 7 – Improved Geometry. Scores of “100” are cases that have had their geometry edited by BLM staff using ArcGIS Pro or MLRS bulk upload tool.

The results of a new EGS geothermal resource assessment of the eastern US, focused on the Northeastern US and based on use of Bottom Hole Temperatures (BHT), are summarized. A total of 5,800 heat flow points are now available for the area as opposed to the 323 used to produce the 2004 Geothermal Map of North America. The challenge is determining heat flow and subsurface temperature in areas where no data or limited conventional heat flow data exist in the previous assessments (most of the eastern 2/3 of the US). The techniques used to allow large scale use of BHT data for heat flow calculations are described. The process for the temperature-at-depth calculation is updated to better accommodate the use of BHT data. The geophysical data are also utilized as an ancillary predictor to the heat flow determination process in areas with limited or no thermal data. This study uses the same process to calculate heat storage when the thermal properties and temperature at depth are known described in the Future of Geothermal Energy report. Heat-in-place values have been updated for the northeastern US. Because of the higher data density the new temperature at depth maps show more localized temperature anomalies then the older maps and are a first step in the identification of site specific geothermal anomalies for further research and development. An important result is the identification and delineation of a significant thermal anomaly in eastern West Virginia.

This is a surface showing relative favorability for the presence of geothermal systems in the western United States. It is an average of 12 models that correlates different geological and geophysical factors to the known presence of moderate (90 - 150° C) to high (> 150° C) temperature geothermal systems. as discussed in the reference in the 'Larger Work' section of this metadata file. The data is represented as a polygon contour file as well as a raster.

Tuscarora-ESRI Geodatabase (ArcGeology v1.3): - Contains all the geologic map data, including faults, contacts, folds, unit polygons, and attitudes of strata and faults. - List of stratigraphic units and stratigraphic correlation diagram. - Detailed unit descriptions of stratigraphic units. - Five cross-sections. - Locations of production, injection, and monitor wells. - 3D model constructed with EarthVision using geologic map data, cross-sections, drill-hole data, and geophysics (model not in the ESRI geodatabase).

This online map represents geothermal wells regulated by the Geologic Energy Management Division.

Map showing the modeled temperature at 5 km depth based on measurements of density and thermal conductivity, calculations of heat production and estimates of heat flow.

Surface Heat flow map of Italy. The temperature map at 3 km depth of Italy has been obtained digitizing the map from scientific paper: Cataldi, R., Mongelli, F., Squarci, P., Taffi, L., Zito, G., Calore, C. - 1995 - Geothermal ranking of Italian territory. Geothermics, 24 (1), 115-129. The map together with the Italian National Geothermal Database can be accessed through Geothopica web portal at http://geothopica.igg.cnr.it

Geothermics is the study of heat generated in Earth's interior and its manifestation at the surface. The NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information has a variety of publications and data sets which provide information on the location, magnitude, and potential uses of geothermal resources. The publication, "Thermal Springs List for the United States" (1981) is a compilation of 1,700 thermal springs locations in 23 states. The list gives the geographic locations of thermal springs by state, and is sorted by degrees of latitude and longitude within the state. It contains the name of each spring (where available), maximum surface temperature (in both degrees Fahrenheit and degrees Celsius), name of corresponding USGS 1:2,500,000-scale (AMS) map, largest scale USGS topographic map coverage available (either 7.5 or 15-min. quadrangle), and cross-references. Thermal springs listed include natural surface hydrothermal features (springs, pools, mud pots, mud volcanoes, geysers, fumaroles, and steam vents) at temperatures of 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit) or higher. They do not include wells or mines, except at sites where they supplement or replace natural vents that have been active recently or at sites where orifices are indistinguishable as natural or artificial. The thermal springs data from this publication are also available on-line."Geothermal Gradient Map of the United States" (1982) shows 1,700 wells, with accompanying heat flow and conductivity data. This map was produced in cooperation with Los Alamos National Laboratory. Thermal aspect data (1991) from the Decade of North American Geology project, are available on diskette. These data were compiled by Dr. David Blackwell of Southern Methodist University. Global heat flow data (1993) were compiled by Dr. Henry Pollack of the University of Michigan. Data were collected through the World Heat Flow Committee of the International Council of Scientific Unions. These are available on-line.

The map shows the expected capacity (P50) in megawatts for a geothermal energy installation (doublet) based on conventional drilling techniques and the 'Rotliegend' as a geological formation from which the heat is extracted. The power is determined on the basis of a number of parameters including the thickness, temperature and depth of the Rotliegend. The starting point is that at least five megawatts are required for a financially viable doublet.

This project updates the geothermal resources beneath our oil and gas fields, as part of the research for the Texas GEO project. This report "Analysis of Geothermal Resources in Three Texas Counties" (October 2020) improves on previous mapping of the Texas resources for the counties of Crockett (West Texas), Jackson (central Gulf Coast) and Webb (South Texas). Through additional bottom-hole temperatures (BHT), the number of well sites increased from 532 to 5,410 in total for these counties. The improved methodology to calculate formation temperatures from 3.5 km (11,500 ft) to 10 km (32,800 ft) includes thermal conductivity values more closely related to the actual county geological formations, incorporated radiogenic heat production of formations, and the related mapped depth to basement. The results show deep temperatures as hotter than previously calculated, with temperatures of 150 degrees Celcius possible for Webb County between depths of 2.6 - 5.1 km, Jackson County between depths 3.0 - 5.4 km, and Crockett County between depths of 2.7 - 8.0 km.

Between 1979 and 1982, the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) and the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, undertook an assessment of the states geothermal resources under a program jointly sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and the State of Alaska. During this period, reconnaissance investigations of more than 100 thermal spring sites and fumarole fields located in Alaska were conducted by DGGS.More recently, DGGS completed a cooperative project with the National Geothermal Data System on thermal springs and related geothermal data of Alaska. The Alaska geothermal database modules include comprehensive information on thermal springs, including temperature and flow rates, direct use, aqueous spring chemistry, physical samples, volcanic vents, geothermal wells, borehole temperature data and geothermal references.DGGS developed and maintains an interactive geothermal web application that brings together various data services related to geothermal sites throughout Alaska.Geothermal springs: Includes temperature and flow information. Spring location uncertainty and data sources are also included.Geothermal wells: Location and name onlyVolcanoes: Direct from the Historically Active Volcanoes of Alaska service

Work conducted at the Bureau of Mineral Resources (now Geoscience Australia) in the early 1990s was instrumental in bringing hot rocks geothermal research and development to Australia. Following the announcement of the Australian Government's Energy Initiative in August 2006, a new geothermal project has been started at Geoscience Australia. This paper, presented at 3rd Hot Rock Energy Conference in Adelaide, August 2007, outlines the scope of the Onshore Energy Security Program and the development, implementation and progress to date of the Geothermal Energy Project.

An Investigation of Potential Geothermal Energy Sources in Mississippi, DOE Contract No. EG-77-S-05-5361; Edwin E. Luper, Principal Investigator; Mississippi Geological, Economic and Topographical Survey; Jackson, Mississippi; 1978.

The objective of this study was to assess the geo-temperature regime in the subsurface of the south-central and southern portion of the state of Mississippi. The area includes the Mississippi Salt Basin, the Jackson Dome, and related minor structural features within the state. In order to accomplish the objective, it was necessary to accumulate sufficient data to construct isothermal maps on six temperatures.The geothermal gradient is expressed in degrees Fahrenheit per hundred feet of depth. Results of this study have indicated that there are areas in south and south-central Mississippi that are favorable for further development of the geothermal resource within the state. The assessment of the geo-temperature regime is the first step in the exploration process and serves to isolate the more prospective areas. The report "Investigation of Potential Geothermal Energy Sources in Mississippi, Open File Report 1" (PDF) comprises 35 pages, including maps and index map. For Convenience, the Index Map is reproduced as a separate file and is available as a PDF. This data was submitted by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality - Office of Geology and made available for distribution through the AASG National Geothermal Data System.

Maps produced include areas of central and southern Mississippi, including all or portions of Adams, Amite, Attala, Calhoun, Carroll, Claiborne, Clarke, Copiah, Covington, Forrest, Franklin, George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, Holmes, Humphreys, Issaquena, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Jefferson Davis, Jones, Lamar, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Leake, Leflore, Lincoln, Madison, Marion, Newton, Pearl River, Perry, Pike, Rankin, Scott, Sharkey, Simpson, Smith, Stone, Sunflower, Walthall, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Wilkinson, and Yazoo Counties.

The isothermal maps that are included with this report have been labeled as follows - Map 1: 158 F (70 C) isotherm. Map 2: 212 F (100 C) isotherm. Map 3: 248 F (120 C) isotherm. Map 4: 302 F (150 C) isotherm. Map 5: 356 F (180 C) isotherm. Map 6: 401 F (205 C) isotherm. The first three isothermal maps were constructed using an approximate scale of 1 to 250,000. Due to their size, they were divided into five sections as shown on the Index Map. The two remaining isothermal maps, as well as the 401 F (205 C) location map, were constructed using an approximate scale of 1 to 500,000.

These maps were contoured manually by the staff of the MGS in 1978. Many of the reference marks appear to be incorrectly drawn, so a best-fit methodology was used on the scanned maps to attempt to place them in their appropriate relative location in georeferencing.

The RE-Powering Screening Dataset spreadsheet contains detailed information on over 130,000 contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites with screening results for renewable energy potential. Please review the Data Documentation for Mapping and Screening for more details regarding the information contained in this file. The RE-Powering Mapper and associated documents are provided solely as general information on screening potential. It does not address all information, factors, or considerations that may be relevant in a particular situation. Results do not reflect an endorsement or recommendation for development potential by EPA. References to third-party publications, websites, commercial products, process, or services by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, are for informational purposes only. No endorsement or recommendation should be inferred and is not implied. EPA, NREL and the United States Government do not endorse any non-federal product, services or enterprise.