SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
September, 17 2010, 11:21am EDT
Contact:
Craig Tucker, Karuk Tribe: 916-207-8294
Steve Rothert, American Rivers: 530-277-0448
Glen Spain, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations: 541-689-2000
Jeff Mitchell, Klamath Tribes of Oregon: 541-891-5971
Curtis Knight, California Trout: 530-859-1872
Petey Brucker, Salmon River Restoration Council: 530-598-4229
It's Official: Removing Klamath Dams Saves Money for Power Customers
Oregon Public Utilities Commission Rules that Dam Removal under terms of the Klamath Agreements is in Ratepayers’ Best Interest
SALEM, Ore.
Today the Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC) - the Oregon agency charged with protecting utility customers - formally ruled, after months of investigation, that the proposed Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) is indeed in the best interests of PacifiCorp ratepayers as well as the cheapest alternative for the company.
The basis of the Commission's official finding is the significant cost savings of dam removal over retrofitting and relicensing. The KHSA would lead to the removal of four dams on the Klamath River in 2020, pending environmental reviews and approval by the Secretary of Interior. The only other alternative is a much more expensive relicensing proceeding through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the federal agency which licenses dams, which the Commission found will likely cost PacifiCorp's customers far more money than dam removal.
The Commission's Order, released today in OPUC Rate Case No. UE-219, noted that:
"Ratepayers will be responsible for significant future costs for the Klamath Project (regardless of the disposition of the dams).... We are persuaded that continued pursuit of the relicensing option would pose significant risks to ratepayers. The nature and scope of the costs involved with relicensing would remain uncertain and subject to significant escalation for a considerable period of time. The KHSA in contrast, offers a more certain path for the Project's future..... Due to significant tangible and intangible benefits associated with the KHSA, we conclude it is in the best interest of customers and find the KHSA surcharges to be fair, just and reasonable." (pg. 12)
"Because the KHSA limits costs and manages risk better than relicensing, we find the KHSA to be in the best interest of customers, and we determine that the KHSA surcharges are, therefore, fair, just and reasonable." (pg. 13)
"We argued for years that on the Klamath, dam removal saves ratepayers money. Today, after a thorough investigation, the Oregon Public Utility Commission has formally confirmed that fact," said Glen Spain, Northwest Director of the Pacific Coast Fishermen's Associations, which represented commercial fishing interests in the Klamath Settlement negotiations. "These ageing dams are simply obsolete, and their removal is clearly the cheapest option."
PacifiCorp has approximately 550,000 customers in Oregon who are now contributing small surcharge amounts (averaging about $1.50 per month per customer) each month under the KHSA, toward a Klamath dam removal fund, in accordance with a bill passed by the Oregon Legislature last year (SB 76). This "Klamath surcharge" was also approved by the Commission's ruling as a fair and reasonable way to help pay for dam removal costs.
Customer surcharges to pay for operational changes of this sort are the normal practice in the utilities industry.
The KHSA caps ratepayer liability at $200 million. The alternative to the KHSA would be to formally relicense the dams, costing ratepayers an estimated $500 million or more in required upgrades to the aging facilities.
All the four Klamath hydropower dams combined generate only a very small amount of power - only about 82 Megawatts (MW) on average over the past fifty years. According to estimates by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the federal agency that licenses dams, even after expensive retrofitting to meet modern standards, these dams would still only generate about 62 MW of power on average, or about 27% less than they do today. FERC itself estimated in its 2007 Final Environmental Impact Report on relicensing that even if fully FERC relicensed, the required retrofitting would be so expensive that these dams would then operate at more than a $20 million/year net loss (see FERC FEIS, Table 4-3 on pg. 4-2).
"The Commission's order today means PacifiCorp customers will save money and there will be money in the bank for dam removal. The federal government just finalized a $26 million contract for the two largest dam removals ever - 108 ft and 210 ft tall, on Elwha River in Washington. The Klamath dams range from 25 ft to 173 ft. This is more evidence that removing Klamath dams is both affordable and feasible," said Steve Rothert, California Director of American Rivers.
In addition to lower utility bills, Klamath dam removal proponents say benefits of dam removal include more jobs and investments in local Klamath basin economies. Also, reservoirs created by the dams are currently contaminated with life-threatening blue-green algae that is harmful to humans and can be lethal to pets and livestock. Dam removal is expected to greatly improve water quality as well as bolster valuable salmon runs which support many regional jobs.
A similar ruling by the California PUC is anticipated, to cover PacifiCorp's roughly 45,000 California customers, in March 2011.
# # #
Editor's note: For summaries and the full text of the Klamath Settlement Agreements as well as additional fact sheets on the terms of the Agreements, see:https://www.klamathrestoration.org.
For more on the federal and state dam removal environmental analysis and federal and state decision-making process leading toward a final Secretary of Interior decision on dam removal in March, 2012, see: www.klamathrestoration.gov.
The 119-page Oregon PUC Order affirming the Klamath surcharge can be found on the OPUC website at: https://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2010ords/10-364.pdf.
American Rivers is the only national organization standing up for healthy rivers so our communities can thrive. Through national advocacy, innovative solutions and our growing network of strategic partners, we protect and promote our rivers as valuable assets that are vital to our health, safety and quality of life. Founded in 1973, American Rivers has more than 65,000 members and supporters nationwide, with offices in Washington, DC and the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, California and Northwest regions.
LATEST NEWS
'An Arsenal of Profiteering': Military Contractors Have Gotten Over Half of Pentagon Spending Since 2020
"These figures represent a continuing and massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to fund war and weapons manufacturing," said the project's director.
Jul 08, 2025
Less than a week after U.S. President Donald Trump signed a budget package that pushes annual military spending past $1 trillion, researchers on Tuesday published a report detailing how much major Pentagon contractors have raked in since 2020.
Sharing The Guardian's exclusive coverage of the paper on social media, U.K.-based climate scientist Bill McGuire wrote: "Are you a U.S. taxpayer? I am sure you will be delighted to know where $2.4 TRILLION of your money has gone."
The report from the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson School of International and Public Affairs and the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft shows that from 2020-24 private firms received $2.4 trillion in Department of Defense contracts, or roughly 54% of DOD's $4.4 trillion in discretionary spending for that five-year period.
The publication highlights that "during those five years, $771 billion in Pentagon contracts went to just five firms: Lockheed Martin ($313 billion), RTX (formerly Raytheon, $145 billion), Boeing ($115 billion), General Dynamics ($116 billion), and Northrop Grumman ($81 billion)."
In a statement about the findings, Stephanie Savell, director of the Costs of War Project, said that "these figures represent a continuing and massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to fund war and weapons manufacturing."
"This is not an arsenal of democracy—it's an arsenal of profiteering," Savell added. "We should keep the enormous and growing power of the arms industry in mind as we assess the rise of authoritarianism in the U.S. and globally."
Between 2020 and 2024, $771 billion in Pentagon contracts went to just five firms: Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman. By comparison, the total diplomacy, development, and humanitarian aid budget, excluding military aid, was $356 billion. [5/12]
[image or embed]
— The Costs of War Project (@costsofwar.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 2:43 PM
The paper points out that "by comparison, the total diplomacy, development, and humanitarian aid budget, excluding military aid, was $356 billion. In other words, the U.S. government invested over twice as much money in five weapons companies as in diplomacy and international assistance."
"Record arms transfers have further boosted the bottom lines of weapons firms," the document details. "These companies have benefited from tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Israel and Ukraine, paid for by U.S. taxpayers. U.S. military aid to Israel was over $18 billion in just the first year following October 2023; military aid to Ukraine totals $65 billion since the Russian invasion in 2022 through 2025."
"Additionally, a surge in foreign-funded arms sales to European allies, paid for by the recipient nations—over $170 billion in 2023 and 2024 alone—have provided additional revenue to arms contractors over and above the funds they receive directly from the Pentagon," the paper adds.
The 23-page report stresses that "annual U.S. military spending has grown significantly this century," as presidents from both major parties have waged a so-called Global War on Terror and the DOD has continuously failed to pass an audit.
Specifically, according to the paper, "the Pentagon's discretionary budget—the annual funding approved by Congress and the large majority of its overall budget—rose from $507 billion in 2000 to $843 billion in 2025 (in constant 2025 dollars), a 66% increase. Including military spending outside the Pentagon—primarily nuclear weapons programs at the Department of Energy, counterterrorism operations at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other military activities officially classified under 'Budget Function 050'— total military spending grew from $531 billion in 2000 to $899 billion in 2025, a 69% increase."
Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed earlier this month "adds $156 billion to this year's total, pushing the 2025 military budget to $1.06 trillion," the document notes. "After taking into account this supplemental funding, the U.S. military budget has nearly doubled this century, increasing 99% since 2000."
Noting that "taxpayers are expected to fund a $1 trillion Pentagon budget," Security Policy Reform Institute co-founder Stephen Semler said the paper, which he co-authored, "illustrates what they'll be paying for: a historic redistribution of wealth from the public to private industry.”
Semler produced the report with William Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute. Hartung said that "high Pentagon budgets are often justified because the funds are 'for the troops.'"
"But as this paper shows, the majority of the department's budget goes to corporations, money that has as much to do with special interest lobbying as it does with any rational defense planning," he continued. "Much of this funding has been wasted on dysfunctional or overpriced weapons systems and extravagant compensation packages."
The arms industry has used an array of tools of influence to create an atmosphere where a Pentagon budget that is $1 trillion per year is deemed “not enough” by some members of Congress. [9/12]
[image or embed]
— The Costs of War Project (@costsofwar.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 2:43 PM
In addition to spotlighting how U.S. military budgets funnel billions of dollars to contractors each year, the report shines a light on the various ways the industry influences politics.
"The ongoing influence of the arms industry over Congress operates through tens of millions in campaign contributions and the employment of 950 lobbyists, as of 2024," the publication explains. "Military contractors also shape military policy and lobby to increase military spending by funding think tanks and serving on government commissions."
"Senior officials in government often go easy on major weapons companies so as not to ruin their chances of getting lucrative positions with them upon leaving government service," the report notes. "For its part, the emerging military tech sector has opened a new version of the revolving door—the movement of ex-military officers and senior Pentagon officials, not to arms companies per se, but to the venture capital firms that invest in Silicon Valley arms industry startups."
The paper concludes by arguing that "the U.S. needs stronger congressional and public scrutiny of both current and emerging weapons contractors to avoid wasteful spending and reckless decision-making on issues of war and peace. Profits should not drive policy."
"In particular," it adds, "the role of Silicon Valley startups and the venture capital firms that support them needs to be better understood and debated as the U.S. crafts a new foreign policy strategy that avoids unnecessary wars and prioritizes cooperation over confrontation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Applauds Vote by Largest US Teachers Union to Cut ADL Ties
"Despite its reputation as a civil rights organization, the ADL is not the social justice educational partner it claims to be," said the National Education Association.
Jul 08, 2025
A leading Muslim civil rights group was among those applauding on Tuesday after the largest labor union in the United States took a major step toward "fostering respect for the rights and dignity of all students in public schools" by voting to cut ties with the Anti-Defamation League.
The National Education Association (NEA), which represents nearly 3 million educators, approved a measure saying it "will not use, endorse, or publicize materials from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), such as its curricular materials or statistics."
The move is significant considering the influence the ADL has had over curriculum related to Israel in U.S. schools for decades, with the organization devising recent lesson plans about antisemitism "in the extreme political left" in the U.S., noting that such supposed antisemitism "is often centered on opposition to the state of Israel."
The ADL published a report last year that equated antisemitism with anti-Zionism and pointed to nationwide demonstrations against Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Palestinians in Gaza as evidence that antisemitism is on the rise in the United States. The group has also lobbied in favor of legislation like the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which critics have said could be used to limit the right to criticize Israel on school campuses.
The NEA's 7,000-member Representative Assembly voted for the measure on Sunday, finding that "despite its reputation as a civil rights organization, the ADL is not the social justice educational partner it claims to be."
In the lead-up to the vote, former Massachusetts Teachers Association president Merrie Najimy cited the ADL's attacks last year in the MTA as evidence that the national group is focused on rooting out and ostracizing critics of Israel's U.S.-backed policies and defenders of Palestinian rights—not on promoting civil rights for all members of school communities.
"This principled move is a significant step toward fostering respect for the rights and dignity of all students in public schools, who must receive an education without facing biased, politically driven agendas."
When the MTA's elected board of directors called on the union to create resources for teachers to use to educate themselves about the history of Palestine, the ADL accused the union of "glorifying terrorism" and displayed what the MTA called "manipulated" resources at a state commission hearing on antisemitism in February.
"We had been led to believe that the commission hearing would provide the opportunity for a thoughtful discussion about how to teach this very difficult conflict with our students," said the MTA about the ADL's use of the resources. "The way these resources were manipulated in such a fashion, so as to label the state's largest union of educators as promoters of antisemitism, remains one of the more deplorable displays witnessed at the State House."
Labor Notes reported on Monday that MTA members are still facing attacks stemming from the ADL's claims that the union was promoting antisemitism in schools.
"Why would we partner with an organization that does us harm?" Najimy said ahead of the NEA vote.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said Tuesday it welcomed the vote "to stop exposing public school students to biased materials provided by the Anti-Defamation League," and noted that in addition to "using false allegations of antisemitism to silence advocacy for Palestinian human rights," the ADL has historically demonstrated "opposition to Black movements for racial equality, including Black Lives Matter and the South African anti-apartheid movement."
ADL CEO and national director Jonathan Greenblatt wrote in the New York Jewish Week in 2016 that Black Lives Matter leaders "have expressed support for efforts to boycott and divest from the state of Israel" and claimed those efforts "often are rooted in bigotry." The group also targeted activists who opposed apartheid in South Africa
"The ADL has only become worse under its increasingly unhinged director Jonathan Greenblatt, who has repeatedly smeared and endangered students in recent years," said CAIR. "This principled move is a significant step toward fostering respect for the rights and dignity of all students in public schools, who must receive an education without facing biased, politically driven agendas."
CAIR pointed to recent statements made by Greenblatt in which he reportedly equated pro-Palestinian protesters to ISIS and falsely claimed that Jewish and other students protesting Israel's bombardment of Gaza are "campus proxies" for the Iranian government.
Palestinian-American civil rights attorney Huwaida Arraf said the ADL "has long masqueraded as a civil rights organization while actively working to suppress antiracist movements."
The anti-war group CodePink has led efforts to end the ADL's influence over public education, with organizer Marcy Winograd speaking out against the group's so-called "No Place for Hate" program earlier this year.
"The ADL's stated mission is to empower students, teachers, and parents to 'stand against bias and bullying...' with schoolwide pledges, projects, and games aimed at celebrating diversity and stamping out hate," wrote Winograd in a column at Common Dreams.
But when the Los Angeles Unified School District instituted the No Place for Hate program, its official website shared "an article attacking American Muslims for Palestine for 'being at the core of the anti-Israel and anti-Zionist movement in the United States.'"
"While selling schools on activities to bolster respect and community, the ADL... engineers the death of debate over Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nationalist state in historic Palestine," wrote Winograd.
"Schools," she wrote, "are no place for the ADL."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats Warn Against 'Massively Corrupt' Trump Golden Dome Plans
"We are concerned that Golden Dome will be much more effective at wasting taxpayer dollars than countering missile attacks," the lawmakers wrote.
Jul 08, 2025
A quartet of Democratic lawmakers are warning that U.S. President Donald Trump's plans to build a "Golden Dome" missile defense system could open the door to a corrupt boondoggle.
In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Reps. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) and Don Beyer (D-Va.) made the case that the proposed missile defense system goes well beyond what is actually needed to defend the nation against foreign missile attacks.
"The Trump administration's plans for Golden Dome could make it prohibitively expensive, operationally ineffective, massively corrupt, and detrimental to U.S. and global security by igniting a nuclear arms race with Russia and China," the Democrats wrote. "We are concerned that Golden Dome will be much more effective at wasting taxpayer dollars than countering missile attacks. We urge you to rein in this dangerous plan."
The Democrats then pointed to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office that the system could cost up to $542 billion to complete, which is more than three times the cost that the Trump administration projected to have the system "fully operational" within the next four years.
They also warned about conflicts of interest posed by SpaceX, which is owned by estranged Trump ally Elon Musk, being awarded contracts to handle the project.
"In addition, U.S. Department of Defense recently announced plans to significantly scale back the Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, which in the past conducted essential testing of missile defense systems to ensure their military effectiveness," the lawmakers added. "As a result, the administration could rush ahead to award multibillion-dollar Golden Dome contracts with little ability to assess whether the money is being well-spent."
Trump has said that he was inspired to develop such a missile system for the United States after being impressed by Israel's "Iron Dome" system, despite the fact that Israel has a vastly smaller landmass to defend compared to the U.S. and has historically faced far more danger from missile and rocket attacks than the U.S.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular