CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 15 — CONTINGENCIES Securities Class Actions Following the Company’s public announcement that it would restate certain of its financial results due to a change in the Company’s accounting treatment for certain exploration and development costs, three securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on March 9, 2010, March 18, 2010 and April 7, 2010. These complaints assert claims against the Company and certain officers and directors for alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). One complaint also asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. All three complaints allege claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Company common stock between May 6, 2008 or May 7, 2008 and February 23, 2010 or February 24, 2010. These three lawsuits were consolidated by the court in an order issued on June 3, 2010, and the court appointed three of the Company’s stockholders to serve as lead plaintiffs. Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint (“CAC”) on July 9, 2010 that asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Company common stock between May 7, 2008 and February 24, 2010. The CAC alleges that certain of the Company’s public statements were false and misleading for failing to account properly for the Company’s exploration and development costs based on the Company’s announcement on February 24, 2010 that it was going to restate certain of its financial results to change its method of accounting for exploration and development costs in certain respects. The CAC also alleges that certain of the Company’s statements concerning the North Brawley project were false and misleading. The CAC seeks compensatory damages, expenses, and such further relief as the court may deem proper. The Company cannot make an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC on August 13, 2010. On March 3, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ allegations that the Company’s statements regarding the North Brawley project were false or misleading, but did not dismiss plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the restatement. Defendants answered the remaining allegations in the CAC regarding the restatement on April 8, 2011 and the case has now entered the discovery phase. On July 22, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the case as a class action on behalf of a class of purchasers of Company common stock between February 25, 2009 and February 24, 2010, and defendants filed an opposition to the motion for class certification on October 4, 2011. The Company believes that these lawsuits have no merit and is defending the actions vigorously. Stockholder Derivative Cases Four stockholder derivative lawsuits have also been filed in connection with the Company’s public announcement that it would restate certain of its financial results due to a change in the Company’s accounting treatment for certain exploration and development costs. Two cases were filed in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe on March 16, 2010 and April 21, 2010 and two cases were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on March 29, 2010 and June 7, 2010. All four lawsuits assert claims brought derivatively on behalf of the Company against certain of its officers and directors for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and other claims, including waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. The two stockholder derivative cases filed in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe were consolidated by the Court in an order dated May 27, 2010 and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated derivative complaint on September 7, 2010. In accordance with a stipulation between the parties, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 16, 2010. On April 18, 2011, the court stayed the state derivative case pending the resolution of the securities class action. The Company cannot make an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss on the state derivative case. The two stockholder derivative cases filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada were consolidated by the Court in an order dated August 31, 2010 and plaintiffs filed a consolidated derivative complaint on October 28, 2010. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on December 13, 2010. On March 7, 2011, the Court transferred the federal derivative case to the Court presiding over the securities class action, and on August 29, 2011, the Court stayed the federal derivative case pending the resolution of the securities class action. The Company believes the allegations in these purported derivative actions are without merit and is defending the actions vigorously. Other On May 19, 2011, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) issued an order which denied the Company’s exemptions for requirements relating to Sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act and directed the Company’s recovered energy generation facilities to make refunds to their customers, equaling “the time value of the revenues collected during the periods of non-compliance with the qualifying facilities”, in an amount of approximately $1.6 million. On June 17, 2011, the Company requested a rehearing to obtain relief on this refund payment. On July 18, 2011, FERC issued an Order Granting Rehearing for Further Consideration in order to afford additional time for consideration of the matters raised. To date, FERC has not taken further action on the rehearing. The Company believes that it is not probable that a refund payment will ultimately need to be made. From time to time, the Company is named as a party in various lawsuits, claims and other legal and regulatory proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. These actions typically seek, among other things, compensation for alleged personal injury, breach of contract, property damage, punitive damages, civil penalties or other losses, or injunctive or declaratory relief. With respect to such lawsuits, claims and proceedings, the Company accrues reserves when a loss is probable and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. It is the opinion of the Company’s management that the outcome of these proceedings, individually and collectively, will not materially affect its business, financial condition, financial results or cash flow.

NOTE 15 — CONTINGENCIES

Securities Class Actions

Following the Company’s public announcement that it would restate certain of its financial results due to a change in the Company’s accounting treatment for certain exploration and development costs, three securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on March 9, 2010, March 18, 2010 and April 7, 2010. These complaints assert claims against the Company and certain officers and directors for alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). One complaint also asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. All three complaints allege claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Company common stock between May 6, 2008 or May 7, 2008 and February 23, 2010 or February 24, 2010. These three lawsuits were consolidated by the court in an order issued on June 3, 2010, and the court appointed three of the Company’s stockholders to serve as lead plaintiffs.

Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint (“CAC”) on July 9, 2010 that asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Company common stock between May 7, 2008 and February 24, 2010. The CAC alleges that certain of the Company’s public statements were false and misleading for failing to account properly for the Company’s exploration and development costs based on the Company’s announcement on February 24, 2010 that it was going to restate certain of its financial results to change its method of accounting for exploration and development costs in certain respects. The CAC also alleges that certain of the Company’s statements concerning the North Brawley project were false and misleading. The CAC seeks compensatory damages, expenses, and such further relief as the court may deem proper. The Company cannot make an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC on August 13, 2010. On March 3, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ allegations that the Company’s statements regarding the North Brawley project were false or misleading, but did not dismiss plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the restatement. Defendants answered the remaining allegations in the CAC regarding the restatement on April 8, 2011 and the case has now entered the discovery phase. On July 22, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the case as a class action on behalf of a class of purchasers of Company common stock between February 25, 2009 and February 24, 2010, and defendants filed an opposition to the motion for class certification on October 4, 2011.

The Company believes that these lawsuits have no merit and is defending the actions vigorously.

Stockholder Derivative Cases

Four stockholder derivative lawsuits have also been filed in connection with the Company’s public announcement that it would restate certain of its financial results due to a change in the Company’s accounting treatment for certain exploration and development costs. Two cases were filed in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe on March 16, 2010 and April 21, 2010 and two cases were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on March 29, 2010 and June 7, 2010. All four lawsuits assert claims brought derivatively on behalf of the Company against certain of its officers and directors for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and other claims, including waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.

The two stockholder derivative cases filed in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe were consolidated by the Court in an order dated May 27, 2010 and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated derivative complaint on September 7, 2010. In accordance with a stipulation between the parties, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 16, 2010. On April 18, 2011, the court stayed the state derivative case pending the resolution of the securities class action. The Company cannot make an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss on the state derivative case.

The two stockholder derivative cases filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada were consolidated by the Court in an order dated August 31, 2010 and plaintiffs filed a consolidated derivative complaint on October 28, 2010. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on December 13, 2010. On March 7, 2011, the Court transferred the federal derivative case to the Court presiding over the securities class action, and on August 29, 2011, the Court stayed the federal derivative case pending the resolution of the securities class action.

The Company believes the allegations in these purported derivative actions are without merit and is defending the actions vigorously.

Other

On May 19, 2011, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) issued an order which denied the Company’s exemptions for requirements relating to Sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act and directed the Company’s recovered energy generation facilities to make refunds to their customers, equaling “the time value of the revenues collected during the periods of non-compliance with the qualifying facilities”, in an amount of approximately $1.6 million. On June 17, 2011, the Company requested a rehearing to obtain relief on this refund payment. On July 18, 2011, FERC issued an Order Granting Rehearing for Further Consideration in order to afford additional time for consideration of the matters raised. To date, FERC has not taken further action on the rehearing.

The Company believes that it is not probable that a refund payment will ultimately need to be made.

From time to time, the Company is named as a party in various lawsuits, claims and other legal and regulatory proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. These actions typically seek, among other things, compensation for alleged personal injury, breach of contract, property damage, punitive damages, civil penalties or other losses, or injunctive or declaratory relief. With respect to such lawsuits, claims and proceedings, the Company accrues reserves when a loss is probable and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. It is the opinion of the Company’s management that the outcome of these proceedings, individually and collectively, will not materially affect its business, financial condition, financial results or cash flow.