I supposed Kulongoski's PR person's argument could be correct. If by "several enviro groups" she means enviro groups that are not based in Oregon, and by "ratepayer benefit" she means spending money that ratepayers are being told is for dam removal on keeping some or all of the dams in.

Why is Ted continuing to push this Bush-administration scheme? Instead of a sweetheart deal for Pacificorp, how about a plan to remove dams and restore the Klamath without sacrificing water and wildlife, and without sticking it to Oregon ratepayers?

 

Actually, this Editorial is way off base, and the reactions to SB 76 quoted in the piece are way out of date.

The OR Bill SB 76 as it will shortly be amended, in large part at the Governor's request, puts NONE of these earmarked dam removal funds in the hands of PacifiCorp, only in the hands of a PUC-appointed Trustee who is accountable only to the PUC (not to PacifiCorp), and the PUC retains all its traditional authorities to make sure any claims against these funds by PacifiCorp are reasonable and prudent and in the best interests of its customers and the public. What the bill also does do -- and this is of great benefit to PacifiCorp's ratepayers and customers -- is to cap future ratepayer liability for these dam removal costs (which they would otherwise be fully liabile for) to ONLY $180 million (with California PacifiCorp customers paying the other $20 million). This would amount to a "rate increase" per Oregon customer of only approximately $1.50/month or $18/year. This is hardly that much of a burden for restoring Klamath salmon runs, once the third largest in the nation, to numbers sufficient so that Oregon salmon-dependent businesses and coastal ports that have been repeatedly closed down because the Klamath dams kill too many Klamath salmon can once again prosper and the more than 1,100 fishing-depedent jobs lost during those closures can return.

Remember that utility customers tradationally pay ALL the costs of removal of obsolete utility plants and/or FERC relicensing. SB 76 would provide quite a bit of protection for Oregon's customers by simply "capping" the amount they will have to pay to a mere $200, plus spreading it all out over 12 years between now and 2020. It is not the PUC that decides whether a dam comes out or not, it is the federal government -- and in this case, Klamath dam removal is going to be FAR cheaper than trying to patch these obsolete structures (some dating back to 1916) up so as to meet modern engineering and environmental standards. Far from being a bad thing, SB 76 is good for both PacifiCorp customers and the Oregon economy.

-- Glen Spain, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) www.pcffa.org

 

glenn: so when does the Trinity ever enter this discussion of salmon killing on the Klamath? The Trinity dam is still there, off the table, causing 63% of the total annual flow of the Trinity to be diverted through tunnels, canals and penstocks to make power all the way to the Sacramento river, and then that water taken from the Klamath watershed goes south of Fresno to grow desert crops and fill swimming pools...No water is taken out of the watershed in Oregon, and unlike California, where the Scott river is dried up by irrigation below the Klamath dams, Oregon does not dewater the river. OH, and the Shasta river is 125% appropriated for irrigation as well. The warm water Klamath is the key to saving salmon on the Klamath, while the cold water tributary, half the flow of the river at the ocean before the water was stolen by souther California ag interests, has no lawsuits, dam removals, or pain for rate payers. The Trinity just keeps on making electricity on its way to the desert. ON the Oregon side, the river flows from the desert to the Ocean, and the Trinity flows from the Trinity Alps, snow fields, forests, to become irrigation water for government subsidized cotton and field corn. Lovely. I guess this whole deal is about the power of California and over 50 house members, and Oregon with five. A power play, and all the conservationists are in it because they can't win in California. Oregon will pay and pay, and the fish will never be there, especially the Klamath hatchery fish that enter the river way too early in the late summer, before the diurnal cooling starts. Man made parameters for the fish to meet the pre Labor Day tourist fish market for the tribes. After Labor Day, their only market is SF fish buyers, and they don't pay much for gillnetted fish in fresh water. Any Astoria Finn would know that. Political power plays by special interests and biological manipulation never works, and this dam removal deal is just that. Another Green Legacy deal for Kulongoski...save me, pulleze...

 

Get real!!! Does anyone really think $1.50 per household per month is the total cost. Every Oregon Household should be banging on Ted's door. They say 180 million will be total cost of dam removal. Think again!! That may be the best case scenario, but FERC's estimate in a worst case scenario is excess of $4 billion. That takes care of the toxic sediment, but not for green energy replacement costs, which are estimated to be another $35 million per year. Actual cost is obviously somewhere in between. Now I wonder what the monthly increase in Oregonians household power bill will be. A whole lot more than $1.50 a month I think.