I visited some geothermal plants once in a place called The Geysers in CA. My dad was there consulting, I was pretty young and I didn't get to see the real cool stuff but I saw enough to get a sense of the possible environmental impact. In that particular spot, it was obviously a pretty clean way to make power.
Geothermal has the potential to generate a lot of power. The Geysers complex originally provided enough for about 450,000 people. But the steam pressure turned out to be a finite resource, and now it's not generating nearly so much. Something to consider; geothermal is potentially not really a renewable resource, it could turn out to be just steam mining. The Geysers field was unique in that it was NOT full of foul sulphuric crap from the bowels of the earth, so after letting the steam turn the turbines they just vented the steam and the water never made it back into the watertable, thus the pressuredrop. Most other geothermal locations have to do some recapture and pump it all back under again for eventual reheating, but of course pumping costs energy, and the replacement costs for all the corrosion that happens to the infrastructure that does all this is immense.
There are geothermal reports for nearly every state in the US, with the goal of looking at the temps and volumes of either steam or water as either an energy source or an irrigation water source. There's definitely one for WA and I've looked at the table-form short version before, but don't remember the numbers on the several hot spots near Baker.
I would guess that anything anywhere near Baker, like say if they tapped the Dorr field by slant drilling it at lower elevation, would be pretty damn sulphuric and they'd have to do a lot of recapture to be allowed to do it.
