January 27, 2006
By STEVE KADEL
H&N Staff Writer
A recent federal ruling strengthens the chances that Basin irrigators will see
major electricity rate increases this spring. And how much of a rate increase
irrigators see could depend on which side of the Oregon-California border
they're on.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
issued an order Jan. 20 denying a Department of the Interior request that
current power rates charged by PacifiCorp be extended past the April 16 contract
expiration.
“It was a punch in the gut,” said Greg Addington, executive director of the
Klamath Water Users Association, which represents 17 irrigation districts in the
Basin. “It's another hurdle, and we're getting used to hurdles.”
Oregon law provides a seven-year period to phase in big rate increases. But
mitigation for the so-called “rate shock” doesn't exist in California, where
the rate boost would be immediate.
A 50-year-old contract between irrigators and PacifiCorp's predecessor has held
rates at six-tenths of a cent per kilowatt hour for Klamath Project farmers and
ranchers. There are about 1,400 farms in the Project.
However, the regulatory commission's decision also would affect irrigators who
are not part of the Project.
“Their rate is different from the Project, but is also low cost,” Addington
said. “They are still looking at a rate increase.”
Those off-Project irrigators now pay three-quarters of a cent per kilowatt hour. PacifiCorp officials say Basin rates are about one-tenth the standard irrigation rate the utility charges users in the Willamette Valley and the Bend area, where the irrigation rate is about 5.5 cents per kilowatt hour.
Public utility commissions in Oregon and
California ultimately will determine the rate structure for irrigators here,
Addington said. That process is under way in Oregon and is set to begin next
week in California.
Addington said the association believes Basin irrigators deserve lower power
rates than those elsewhere.
“We will make our arguments that the Project provides a benefit to the
(Klamath) river,” he said.
Water users contend the river has water
year-round because of the Project, which regulates flow and water availability.
Addington noted that farmers near Medford and elsewhere around the state
primarily use gravity irrigation. That's not the case in the Basin.
“You can't make a comparison to us and
anywhere else in Oregon,” he said.
Association members realize that keeping the 1956 power rate might not be
feasible, Addington said, although they hope for a compromise.
“There's still a chance we will pay a
rate less than (PacifiCorp's) tariff,” he said. “We're trying to be
realistic.”
PacifiCorp spokesman Dave Kvamme said the utility is talking to the California
Public Utility Commission about establishing a phase-in process similar to
Oregon's.
“We have been supportive of something
that mitigates rate shock as long as it doesn't hurt our shareholders and other
customers,” he said.
Kvamme said it's time Basin irrigators paid higher power rates because
PacifiCorp's other ratepayers have been picking up the shortfall.
“The cost for this has been absorbed by all kinds of customers,” he said.
“For 50 years they have had access to low power rates.”
Meanwhile, Bureau of Reclamation spokeswoman Rae Olsen said the regulatory
commission's ruling isn't necessarily a done deal.
“Interior is requesting a rehearing of the order and will also continue to
pursue efforts with the California PUC to encourage at least a phase-in of power
rates,” she said. “Reclamation's position is that, if feasible, a cost-based
power rate should be negotiated which recognizes the value of water control and
availability for PacifiCorp's operation from the Klamath Project.”
Scott Seus, a Tulelake farmer who serves as chairman of the Klamath Water Users
Association's power committee, agrees with Olsen that the issue isn't settled -
particularly with decisions by the two states' public utility commissions still
to come.
“I would not by any means say the nail is in the coffin for the irrigators,”
he said. “I don't want irrigators to think we have given up the fight. The
economics of the Basin are at stake, so we're keeping this alive.”
If the regulatory commission's decision stands, Seus said, it would have a
damaging effect on local wildlife refuges and flows back down the Klamath River.
“The cost would be high enough that there would be an impact to Project
operations,” he said.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Source: http://www.heraldandnews.com/articles/2006/01/27/news/local_news/local2.txt