Skip to comments.Removing 4 Klamath River dams may save money, report finds
Posted on 12/02/2006 7:51:20 PM PST by calcowgirl
Setting the stage for a knockdown fight over the fate of four towering Klamath River dams accused of hammering salmon stocks and the West Coast fishing industry, a new government study released Friday has found that decommissioning the dams could cost $100 million less than operating them for another generation.
The economic analysis, ordered by the California Energy Commission in cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Interior, should provide ammunition for Indian tribes, environmentalists and commercial fishermen eager to see the hydropower dams demolished to reopen more than 300 miles of river that have been blocked to migrating salmon for more than half a century.
"It's now official: The Klamath hydro project is an economic loser," said Steve Rothert of the group American Rivers.
The report, produced by a private consulting firm and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Technical Services Center, found that the cost of demolishing the dams and buying market-rate electricity to offset the lost hydropower over the next three decades would be far less than installing the vast infrastructure and improvements expected to be needed for the dams to win license renewal.
Though the hydro project historically has been able to cheaply deliver enough power for about 70,000 homes, new environmental rules would limit the project's unfettered operation, reducing electricity generation by 23%, the study found.
The cost of erecting fish ladders and other projects to help salmon get past the dams and cure water-quality problems would boost the 30-year cost of the project to between $230 million and $470 million, according to the report.
Removing the dams and buying replacement electricity over the next three decades would cost between $152 million and $277 million ... Depending on the price of power in the future, dam removal could save PacifiCorp ratepayers up to $285 million ...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Even if it bankrupts hundreds of farmers it must be OK. The LA Times says so.
And so it begins...
These whackos keep it up like water pressure!!!
I sure want to be pinged on any Klamath issues...
Here is a link to the report (304 pages, PDF file, 2.35MB)
Problem is, the enviros only have to win once...
Well just damn(!) that as well...
I pinged it based on folks that posted on one of the last threads. I'm sure I probably missed quite a few folks.
Here is who I did ping:
B4Ranch , SierraWasp, tubebender, marsh2 , Carry_Okie , fish hawk, forester, freepatriot32, hedgetrimmer, Issaquahking , Paloma_55, sasquatch , sergeantdave, backhoe , Czar , DoughtyOne, ElkGroveDan,
Thanks for the ping... To yet another wave of GREEN POND SCUM IDEAS!!!
My blood is boiling.
A lot of enviro groups wanting to take down dams are going to be thrilled that their investment in the democratic party may start to reep dividends.
Removing the dams and buying replacement electricity over the next three decades
A state that has rolling blackouts because it CAN'T get enough electricity is going to shut down production of electricity. "We're the government and were here to help you..."
Check out the story at the link that tubebender posted.
Humboldt County Supervisor Jill Geist, who has been a part of the settlement talks, said the report is crucial to leveraging a settlement. Money that could be used toward decommissioning of the dams was approved as part of a bond measure passed by California voters last month. Geist said groups have had productive conversations lately that could produce an offer to Pacificorp for the dams by mid-month.
A couple more to be pinged...
Because at this point, the whole thing is insane. Not only what you posted, but when combined with the new rules for Global Warming regulation, including not being able to buy power from 'dirty' producers in other states, one wonders if there will be any electricity at all. Back to your caves, Californians!
Ahnold..... He'll be back
Their investment in Arnold is reeping vast rewards with the things he has promoted.
The infrastructure bonds included a bunch of parks and enviro projects and Prop 84 is a virtual landmine of $$$$ for enviros. Heck, the transportation bond even included a billion dollars for CARB to implement the Global Warming regulations. Californians approve borrowing to suffocate ourselves with economically destructive regulation. Pure brilliance!
There! There it is!!! There's the key to what makes this all entirely BOGUS TO THE MAX!!! (plus they're leaving out the farmers who grow potato chips for Lay's)
But who the hell cares, right??? (I loves 'em!!!)
Don't anybody forget that those farmers paid the Bureau of Reclamation back for the water reclaimed for irrigating their potato fields. Now everbody's claiming the fish come first! Just like Bruce Babbit and John Garamendi in the Clinton malevolent administration!!! (so that justifies stealing the water rights of the farmers, supposedly... Horse hockey!)
Looks like we're headed to round 2.
IIRC, they didn't exactly pay it back. C.O. and I looked into that a couple years back and a select few looked to have gotten away with mega-bucks. I may be thinking of a different geographic region though.
Well, I just memorialized that list and saved it for next time. You have been added, along with tubebender's additions.
Anybody else want on or off, let me know!
You know, the thing that made it possible for the entire Klamath Basin to become an agriculture area and a productive part of America!!! EnvironMentalists can't stand human productivity... They prefer Commonism!!!
Reply #7 has some of the old pingees from the 1999-2000 era of the Bucket Brigade to the Klamath Tea Party. Just be sure Jeff Head and Issaquahking is on there. And I believe Gritty once drove clear cross America to lend a hand to the good growers of the Klamath Basin... Trouble is, a lot of our old crowd is GONE!!! (especially farmfriend and AuntB)(maybe they're lurkin)
Like I said... I may be thinking of a different geographic region... which I guess I am!
Some of us from So Cal get a bit lost when talking anything north of Ventura. ;-)
Remember when CA did their HUGE "Conserve Water" campaign then people used so little that the water company had to jack rates up to stay in business. What a crock!
btt.. home :-(
I looked and looked for the names of the dams being discussed. The names aren't in the article. Believe it or not, I actually want to know.
Some great paper.
"May save money"? They need to consider all the costs. There is no cost even mentioned about how much it would cost to remove the dams and also how much tourism would be lost due to a reduction in recreational activities behind these dams. Agenda driven report. All BS.
Who do they bitch at when the brownouts come?
Let me guess..
Those evil, greedy CEO's, right??
We don't need no stinkin' electricity.
So pass laws that keep you from generating electricity legally from the dams, then say that they're no longer profitable. I hate these people!!
Well look what I found: Andy Kerr's Company, "The Larch Company LLC" is partners with Pacificorp through the BlueSky project...
You all remember Andy Kerr:
Wow, it appears he's ready to make money off the Klamath Valley again - but this time he's bringing in his partner, Pacificorp...
What It Is
The Larch Company is a for-profit, non-membership conservation organization that represents species who cannot talk and the human generations to come. Legally, it is a limited liability company under Oregon law, which gives an entity the protections that corporations get without having to hold that damn annual meeting and do as much paperwork. I wholly own the Larch Company. My official title is "Czar."
What It Does
The Larch Company carries out conservation projects (see Current Projects and Future Projects).
These projects are either:
* paid for by clients;
* done on speculation (someday maybe I'll get paid to do more of what I've been doing); or,
* pro bono ("for the public good").
Of course, in my opinion, all are for the public good. Some goods just pay better than others or in different ways than financial remuneration.
OF COURSE, ANDY KERR'S THE LARCH COMPANY IS A PARTNER WITH PACIFICORP
As the number of customers
buying renewable energy
through Blue Sky grows,
were making purchases for
the program from more
facilities in Oregon and
around the region. Weve
recently added renewable
energy from small suppliers
throughout the state:
The Larch Company Solar
Project Located in
Ashland, Ore., Larch
system is having the
environmental benefit of
planting 830 trees each year.
Blue Sky is Pacificorp's "green energy program"...
PacifiCorp offers green power under the Blue Sky Program (Schedule 70, New Wind, Geothermal and Solar Power Rider- Optional)
Pacificorp Offers A New Bulk Green Power Option under Docket No. UE-042068
PacifiCorp offers green power under the Blue Sky Program (Schedule 70, New Wind, Geothermal and Solar Power Rider - Optional)
PacifiCorps Blue Sky program allows customers that receive service under the Company's Schedules 16, 18, 24, 36, 40, and 48T to purchase blocks of 100 kWh of new wind power. Customers that subscribe have to pay a charge of $1.95 per block per month to cover the incremental cost of green power plus marketing and administrative costs. Subscription to the program is voluntary and customers may purchase any number of blocks regardless of their energy usage.
ANDY KERR and his business partner PACIFICORP stand to profit from the deal - and when Andy Kerr stands to profit, you can bet it will be at the Klamath Valley farmer's expense...
blow all the hydro-electric dams, and let the water flow! Give 'em what they want. Darkness followed by periods of torrential floods.
OMG - Download this!! Andy Kerr's LARCH COMPANY representative James McCarthy testifying on behalf of Pacificorp to specifically raise utility rates for KLAMATH VALLEY IRRIGATORS!!!
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
In the Matter of the Request of )
PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT )
(dba PACIFICORP )
For a General Rate Increase in the )
Companys Oregon Annual Revenues )
(Klamath Rate Case Portion of this Proceeding )
Direct Testimony of
James V. McCarthy
On Behalf of
Oregon Natural Resources Council, Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermens Associations, and WaterWatch of Oregon
ONRC et al./100
1 Q: PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2 A: My name is James V. McCarthy; my business address is Oregon Natural
3 Resources Council, P.O. Box 151, Ashland, Oregon, 97520.
Q: WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION AND BY WHOM ARE YOU
7 A: I have been employed as a salaried employee by Oregon Natural Resources
8 Council (ONRC) as a Policy Analyst since 2002. In addition, over the same
9 period I have worked as a self-employed public policy and communications
10 consultant, employed by a variety of conservation organization clients such as
11 Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, the Klamath Basin Coalition, and The Larch
Q: WHAT SUBJECTS DO YOU INTEND TO ADDRESS IN THIS
A: I have been asked to review PacifiCorps proposal to move Klamath Basin
irrigators from their present highly subsidized electrical power rates under their
current special contracts rates which have only decreased since 1917 to the
standard Agricultural Pumping Service Tariff, Schedule 41 (the standard tariff),
which is the rate paid by every other similar Oregon agricultural operation
obtaining its power from PacifiCorp.
In particular I have been asked to describe the differences between what
Klamath irrigators pay under their current special contract rates with what every
other non-Klamath Oregon irrigator typically pays under PacifiCorps Schedule
41. This is relevant to whether the current, highly-subsidized and below cost
power rates currently enjoyed by the Klamath Basin irrigators are just and
reasonable, and if not, then what a just and reasonable power rate would be.
And just exactly what will be the production method of the electricity purchased from other sources? How long will that be available before they are closed because they are declared to polluting?
You mean the infamous...
IF IT'S YELLOW LET IT MELLOW
IF IT'S BROWN FLUSH IT DOWN
Thanks dandelion! I'm relatively new to this subject so I didn't know about Andy Kerr or Larch.
But, it's not surprising that they are making way for their investments in green energy to prevail.
My first thought was he is the offspring of Barbara Kerr but he is far worse. My bet is he spent time in Earth/Dirt First while giving lessons to the ELF...
I always figured that Barbara Kerr was related to the ex-President (back in the 60s) of the University of California, Clark Kerr. Liberals one and all!
the issue here is, farmers needing their welfare?
I'm kinda tired of millionaires on the dole
The following is my recent column on the issue. As for the study, it fails to consider that the County will lose a substantial amount of tax income from decommissioning of the facilities and the devaluation of private property. There is also no provision for the loss to 1500 private property owners from having to view a mud flat rather than a bass lake out your window and at the end of your dock.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) held two hearings in Yreka last week to gather comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on re-licensing of the operation of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River. Three of these dams Iron Gate, Copco I and Copco II are located in Siskiyou County. J.C. Boyle lies above Copco 1 in Southern Oregon.
My comments were made at the hearing held in the morning. Most were in response to the proposal advanced by Indian tribes, environmentalists, fishermen and some Upper Klamath Basin farmers in favor of dam removal:
Because of the dams, the public benefits from the production of 151 megawatts (mw) of clean electricity, especially the production from operations that provide energy during periods of peak load demand. The project also does supply some flood control benefits that can be critical to residents downstream of Iron Gate Dam.
There are proposed license conditions to mitigate (compensate) for the effects of the hydro-project that will increase fish spawning and rearing habitat, enhance wildlife habitat, support recreational opportunities, and protect the quality of the environment. The Staff Alternative proposal allows for the public benefit that derives from power generation, while complying with requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) associated with the designated river segment below the JC Boyle powerhouse in Oregon and the eligible segment continuing from the California border down to Copco Reservoir. This area is known for its Class IV+ whitewater boating and trout fly-fishing.
There are many negative impacts of dam removal. Among them are:
More than 20 million cu. yds. of fine sediment exist above the dams that would be mobilized down river to cement-in spawning beds, destroy populations of invertebrates and smother salmon eggs. This would likely have significant, irreversible, and irretrievable effects on fish, prey species, invertebrates, and other elements of the river ecosystem immediately upon dam breaching and for decades following.
Approximately 1,500 privately owned parcels could suffer depreciation in value due to: loss of shorefront property; loss of water access; loss of lake views; loss of recreational opportunity; impacts of the deconstruction process; and impacts of muck and mire until the area is rehabed and revegetated. There would also be a substantial loss of tax revenue to Siskiyou County and California for the facilities and any diminishment of property values.
Siskiyou County also sent letters to the Governors of California and Oregon and our legislators. The County continues to oppose dam removal, although it does not oppose activities that seek to introduce anadromous fish (salmon and steelhead) above the dams. In fact, the Board of Supervisors supports fish ladders as a win/win solution. The County believes that all reasonable options to reintroduce fish, (short of dam removal,) should be fully explored before the option of dam removal is pursued. However, if FERC considers dam removal, funds should be made available to finance a robust dam removal impact assessment study prior to any decisions being made. Any decision to remove or decommission dams should ensure that all the impacts to the interests of the County and its constituents, not just the interests of the proponents of dam removal are identified and fully funded and satisfied prior to removal.
Protecting salmon, kangaroo rats and endangered cockroaches is infinitely more important than farmers. Farmers, after all, engage in destructive things like making popcorn, raising hamburger and growing tofu and alfalfa sprouts for hippies.
Farmers need to change careers and worship gaia and send 25 bucks to the Sierra club.
I do not see that side of the economic equation factored into this mix at all and therefore the whole thing is not only a bogus study, it is a bogus study with an agenda.
More of the same...different package. I can tell you from my own experience that the Bureau of Recalamation has been infested on the environmental side with rabid, agenda driven individuals. Those on the operations side, those actually man and work the dams, are constantly having to fight them internally. It is no wonder, IMHO, that outside entitites can manipulate the system and get these types of reports.
The farmers and ranchers and their representatives and friends will need to stand again and beat this down and show it for the junk science that it is.
Being on the East coast I missed the slogan. But who wants that Jesse Jackson chant running around in their hear. Nasty!...