Vote no on 18-80 to keep county involved in KBRA

That’s also a vote for the greatest economic benefit and lowest rates 

By MARSHAL A. MOSER, Jr. 

Guest Writer

October 10, 2010

      Several items in the news recently have confirmed the wisdom of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement and allowing the removal of four of the six dams on the Klamath River to proceed. We should vote no on Klamath County Ballot Measure 18-80.

   First of all, it appears that electric rates are going up, no matter what. The removal of the four outdated dams is the much less expensive route, and best for ratepayers, than the alternative that involves repair of the dams, relicensing and retrofitting them to meet modern standards.

   The Oregon Public Utility Commission ruled recently that “the analysis still shows that the KHSA results in lower rates for Oregon customers, as well as all customers of Pacific Power. If the risks associated with the relicensing scenario could be quantified, we believe that the relative economic benefits of the KHSA would likely be great.”

   The price tag for dam removal

   Agreeing with the commission is the nonprofit organization that represents residential customers in Oregon, the Citizens Utility Board. In an interview with Oregon Public Broadcasting, the board’s executive   director, Bob Jenks, said the price tag for dam removal represents a good deal for consumers.

   Jenks also said that the terms of the dam removal agreement, the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, not only protect consumers from higher costs of dam relicensing but also mandate a cap on the amount ratepayers would pay.

   Without the hydroelectric agreement, Jenks said, “Customers would be on the   hook for potentially almost unlimited costs associated with trying to make the Klamath River with its dams work for fish. And if that wasn’t to happen, we still might be liable for removing the dams.”

   Sharing the cost

   The present agreement, part of the KHSA which started in March of this year, “spreads the surcharges among customer classes based on each class’ share of generational revenues, while ensuring that no customer class increase exceeded 2 percent or was less than 1.5 percent.”

   The surcharge on Pacific Power bills amounts to about $1.20-$1.50 a month for the average customer, and is to be paid through 2020. Again, the cost will be larger if the dams are not removed; how much is uncertain, there is no cap to the cost as there is now with the hydroelectric agreement. The PUC says that the cost for ratepayers for dam relicensing would be more than 50 percent higher than removal.

   The TMDL process (total maximum daily load, which applies to pollution levels) was also in the news recently.

   It could also add open-ended costs to citizens in the Basin for legally required   infrastructure to provide cleaner water in the Klamath River.

   These expenditures would be reduced (or eliminated?) if dams are removed because we’d all benefit from the natural processes of the river that automatically clean and cool water — for free.

   The TMDL process has been ongoing nationwide for many years to ensure that the country’s waters remain clean and safe. I noticed the recent announcements were almost an afterthought that not following through on the removal of the dams as in the restoration agreement could make it more difficult and expensive to meet TMDL standards. Perhaps an afterthought, but true.

   Economic impact

   “KBRA=Jobs,” the grass roots local effort to support the restoration agreement, is based on the economic impact that the restoration agreement process and removing the dams will have on business and agricultural planning and security, fishing, land and housing values, water quality, tourism, commercial fishing, etc., from the upper end of the Basin to the Pacific Coast.  

   The decision about dam removal is currently being considered by the U.S. Department of Interior.

   Clearly a decision to remove the dams is in the best interest of Klamath County ratepayers and stabilizes the allocation of water in the Basin. A lot of time and effort was put in by a wide cross-section of the people of the Klamath Basin to reach the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.

   We need to ensure that our elected officials continue to represent us in this important process. I urge citizens to vote no on Ballot Measure 18-80. We can’t afford to do nothing and have the decisions made without our representatives’ input.