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 ...
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.
prisoner6
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:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b61dbb04601.htm
Wow, it appears he's ready to make money off the Klamath Valley again - but this time he's bringing in his partner, Pacificorp...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.andykerr.net/Larch/LarchPT.htm
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:BwFfpqEJDM4J:www.pacificpower.net/File/File55689.pdf+%22pacificorp%22+%22larch+company%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
FALL 2005
I
VOLUME 5
I
ISSUE 3
As the number of customers
buying renewable energy
through Blue Sky grows,
we’re making purchases for
the program from more
facilities in Oregon and
around the region. We’ve
recently added renewable
energy from small suppliers
throughout the state:
The Larch Company Solar
Project – Located in
Ashland, Ore., Larch
Company’s photovoltaic
system is having the
environmental benefit of
planting 830 trees each year.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Blue Sky is Pacificorp's "green energy program"...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.wutc.wa.gov/webdocs.nsf/56866f91116f6154882563da00740317/f1caad7fe4309b7f88256a1d00773053!OpenDocument
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)
PacifiCorp’s 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!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://apps.puc.state.or.us/edockets/edocs.asp?FileType=HTB&FileName=ue170htb143017.pdf
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
OF OREGON
In the Matter of the Request of )
)
PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT )
UE-170
(dba PACIFICORP )
)
For a General Rate Increase in the )
Company’s 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
Fishermen’s Associations, and WaterWatch of Oregon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ONRC et al./100
McCarthy/2
Exhibit 101
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.
4
Q: WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION AND BY WHOM ARE YOU
5
6 EMPLOYED?
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
12 Company.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Q: WHAT SUBJECTS DO YOU INTEND TO ADDRESS IN THIS
17
TESTIMONY?
18
A: I have been asked to review PacifiCorp’s proposal to move Klamath Basin
19
irrigators from their present highly subsidized electrical power rates under their
20
current special contracts – rates which have only decreased since 1917 – to the
21
standard Agricultural Pumping Service Tariff, Schedule 41 (the “standard tariff”),
22
which is the rate paid by every other similar Oregon agricultural operation
23
obtaining its power from PacifiCorp.
24
In particular I have been asked to describe the differences between what
25
Klamath irrigators pay under their current special contract rates with what every
26
other non-Klamath Oregon irrigator typically pays under PacifiCorp’s Schedule
27
41. This is relevant to whether the current, highly-subsidized and below cost
28
power rates currently enjoyed by the Klamath Basin irrigators are “just and
29
reasonable,” and if not, then what a “just and reasonable” power rate would be.
30
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?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.