|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
Power
to the People?
Feds
say dams OK
By Phil Hayworth
Pioneer
Press
Fort Jones, California
November 21, 2007
Page E6, column 1
Phone 530-468-5355
email: pioneerp@sisqtel.net
A coalition of environmentalists, commercial salmon fishermen and the
Karuk Indian tribe threw an anti-Klamath River dam party in Portland
last week.
The only problem was that nobody actually showed up.
Notices of the event were mailed out to 50,000 Pacific Power
customers to join the struggle to remove four hydroelectric dams that
stretch along the Klamath from
The idea was to put pressure on Pacific Power and its subsidiary,
PacifiCorp, which runs the hydro dams. The power company has been
embroiled in heated negotiations over the last two years with various
interests - most of whom want the dams removed. They argue that the
dams are responsible for creating toxic blooms of blue-green algae in
the summer. More importantly, they say the dams are destroying the
river, its salmon populations and the cultures that live along its
banks.
But if last week's event was suppose to put the fear of God into
Pacific Power, it failed. That's because, according to one attendee,
only a handful of people - less than 30 - actually showed up to
protest PacifiCorp's presence. It's as though nobody cared.
The event was also timed to coincide with a pending decision by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission about whether it would be better
for the environment - and consumer's pocketbooks - to remove the
dams. The event last week was termed a ratepayer event, and the idea
was to urge FERC and the Oregon Public Utility Commission to deny any
request from PacifiCorp to pass on relicensing costs for the four
dams, which produce about 1 percent to 2 percent of the utility's
power. It's estimated that relicensing costs could fall between $220
million and $450 million. But last Friday, FERC sided with
PacifiCorp, the power company that owns the dams, and recommended
that they not be dismantled.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued its final
Environmental Impact Statement on Friday, and essentially concluded
that Copco I and II,
so that salmon can thrive along the river.
"That's been our view all along, that the dams can be operated
responsibly for fish and customers alike," said Jan Mitchell,
PacifiCorp spokesperson.
FERC's decision came as good news to the Siskiyou County Board of
Supervisors, one of some 25 entities involved in what's been called
the "settlement" negotiations. They've long unanimously
supported
keeping the dams in place.
"We get some $1 million into the county in tax revenue each year
from
the property taxes on the dams," said Michael N. Kobseff, Siskiyou
supervisor.
The report also showed that fitting the dams with fish ladders and
other technology to mitigate dangerous summertime blooms of
blue-green algae will be expensive - nearly $200 million more than if
they were demolished. Others argue that millions will flow into
Klamath and Siskiyou counties if the dams are dismantled, in terms of
jobs and multiplier affects.
But Kobseff said the Board of Supervisors have always contended that
removing the dams could be dangerous, particularly because no one
knows for sure just what kind of toxic sediment would be left behind,
or allowed to flow down river.
"And then another EIR would have to be done on the dam
removal," he said.
The irony is that, whether the dams stay or go, power rates will go
up. Someone has to pay for either fixing the dams or tearing them
down. And Warren Buffet's isn't likely to foot the bill. As usual,
those costs will be passed onto the consumer. But Weiss says the
costs will be barely noticeable because they'll be spread out over
decades. Rising power costs, then, is a moot issue. And if appealing
to ratepayers' bottom lines won't work, then perhaps appealing to
their cultural and environmental inclinations will.
Kelly Catlett of the environmental group, Friends of the River, said
PacifiCorp shouldn't be allowed to "get away with fleecing its own
customers while destroying one of
resources."
The environmental angle seemed to be working, as FERC earlier this
year strongly considering pushing removal of the dams. Then,
suddenly, last Friday's final FERC environmental report. It likely
came as a shock to environmental and Indian groups who for months
have cited FERC letters and preliminary reports that have, in the
past, strongly suggesting that the dams should come down. At the very
least, FERC comment in the past has said that it would be too
expensive to retrofit the dams, and that bringing them up to
environmental standards was risky.
Craig Tucker, spokesman for the Karuk Tribe - one of the groups that
have been for two years now involved in negotiating the removal of
the dams - said the recent report is an example that FERC is
"pandering" to PacifiCorp's bottom line. He said his tribe and
environmental groups still strongly contend that removing the dams is
cheaper for everyone, including PacifiCorp's ratepayers, and that
keeping them could mean "destruction" of tribal cultures who
have
long subsisted on the various salmon species that once thrived in the
river. Steven Weiss of the Northwest Energy Coalition said that
it's
likely better for PacifiCorp's bottom line if the dams remain.
PacifiCorp's profits are determined not by how much power they sell,
but by how much money they put into the dams. Called
"cost-plus"
bookkeeping, Weiss said that the technique means the more concrete
and steel invested in keeping the dams viable, the more profit
PacifiCorp
makes.
He said they make little on the selling of power from the dams. Only a
fraction of PacifiCorp's energy production comes from the four dams,
which together supply 170,000 megawatts - or enough to power about
70,000 homes.
Based in
and another 500,000 in
Holdings Co of
billionaire Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.
PacifiCorp serves some 1.6 million customers in six western states
and almost all of the power used to service those customers comes
from sources other than the four hydro dams on the Klamath.
Whatever the case, the debate over whether the dams will stay or go
is far from over.
Regina Chichizola of the environmental group Klamath Riverkeeper said
that FERC's final EIS has "nothing to do" with the settlement
talks
that have been underway between numerous entities both vying for and
against dam removal.
She said settlement talks will likely take precedence over FERC's EIR
when FERC makes any final decision about allowing PacifiCorp to
continue operating the dams. PacifiCorp's Mitchell admitted that the
results of the negotiated settlement - which could be made public as
soon as this month - will have a powerful impact on FERC's decision
to re-license the dams. Even
removing the dams would be OK in their opinion, just so long as
energy rates don't skyrocket and that there's still plenty of water
in
backbone of the Basin's economy.
Proponents of keeping the dams have argued that the dams serve as
flood-control mechanisms along the
recent global warming studies to argue that keeping the dams will
help prevent the predicted massive flooding in lowland areas
precipitated by rapid, global warming induced snowmelts. But others
argue that the dams are too small to serve as significant flood
control. Just ask the folks who live and work near
Copco dams and they'll tell you that flooding is a major concern -
and that removal of the dams puts them all in a "flood zone"
for
insurance purposes.
Land owners around the lakes argue that their lake-front views will
suddenly become long-distance views of the river. They don't like
that for obvious reasons. Finally, proponents of the keeping the
dams have argued that their removal would mean that energy to fill
the gap would have to come from sources that have a greater "carbon
footprint."
PacifiCorp's Mitchell, however, said that solar and wind energy will
likely be considered as a replacement for power lost, should the dams
come down. She also said that PacifiCorp is considering
"biomass"
power as a replacement. While biomass isn't completely without carbon
discharge, it is considered by both
acceptable forms of "renewable" energy and would fit nicely
into the
company's required "portfolio" of renewable energy required by
the
law in both states.
She said the power produced from the four hydro plants does not count
toward that renewable portfolio requirement because the plants are
too old. The fight over the dams is sure to continue, and the recent
FERC report will likely heat things up in the continued negotiated
settlement talks.
Over the past two years,
aside differences to negotiate an agreement to restore the river and
provide economic sustainability to all the rural communities of the
Basin. The pending "settlement" would balance the needs of
fish-dependent as well as farm communities, argue proponents of dam
removal. However, most settlement participants agree that dam removal
is a core principle of the negotiated agreement.
"We can't continue to let Pacific Power extract the wealth of the
consequences," said Ron Reed, Cultural Biologist for the Karuk
Tribe.
"This is an amazing opportunity to save ratepayers money, restore
salmon and provide economic stability to
communities," said Kelly Catlett of Friends of the River. She said
that Pacific Power refuses to act "responsibly" - in other
words,
tear down the dams.
But attempts to mobilize ratepayers into action have all but failed
so far, as last week's
sided with the power company, the question of whether the dams will
come down has suddenly gotten a lot more complicated.
For the FERC
report, go to:
www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/enviro/eis/2007/11-16-07.asp
(Permission to post from the publisher.)