September, 17 2010, 11:21am EDT
For Immediate Release
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
In Blow to Koch and Exxon, Federal Judges Say Minnesota Climate Suit Belongs in State Court
"This ruling is a major victory for Minnesota's efforts to hold oil giants accountable for their climate lies, and a major defeat for fossil fuel companies' attempt to escape justice," said one advocate.
Mar 24, 2023
Minnesota on Thursday scored a significant procedural win in a lawsuit seeking to hold Big Oil accountable for lying to consumers about the dangers of burning fossil fuels and thus worsening the deadly climate crisis.
In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed with a lower court that the state's climate fraud lawsuit against the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, and Koch Industries can proceed in state court, where it was filed.
"This ruling is a major victory for Minnesota's efforts to hold oil giants accountable for their climate lies, and a major defeat for fossil fuel companies' attempt to escape justice," Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement.
"Big Oil companies have fought relentlessly to avoid facing the evidence of their climate fraud in state court, but once again judges have unanimously rejected their arguments," said Wiles. "After years of Big Oil's delay tactics, it's time for the people of Minnesota to have their day in court."
Fossil fuel corporations have known for decades that burning coal, oil, and gas generates planet-heating pollution that damages the environment and public health. But to prolong extraction and maximize profits, the industry launched a disinformation campaign to downplay the life-threatening consequences of fossil fuel combustion.
"Big Oil companies have fought relentlessly to avoid facing the evidence of their climate fraud in state court, but once again judges have unanimously rejected their arguments."
Dozens of state and local governments have filed lawsuits arguing that Big Oil's longstanding effort to sow doubt about the reality of anthropogenic climate change—and to minimize the fossil fuel industry's leading role in causing it—has delayed decarbonization of the economy, resulting in widespread harm.
Since 2017, the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, along with 35 municipalities in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, Washington, and Puerto Rico, have sued fossil fuel giants in an attempt to hold them financially liable for misleading the public about the destructive effects of greenhouse gas emissions from their products.
"Minnesota is not the first state or local government to file this type of climate change litigation," the Eighth Circuit declared Thursday. "Nor is this the first time" that fossil fuel producers have sought to shift jurisdiction over such suits from state courts to federal court, where they believe they will be more likely to avoid punishment.
"But our sister circuits rejected them in each case," the federal appeals court continued. "Today, we join them."
According to the Center for Climate Integrity, "Six federal appeals courts and 13 federal district courts have now unanimously ruled against the fossil fuel industry's arguments to avoid climate accountability trials in state courts."
Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice moved for the first time to support communities suing Big Oil by urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Exxon and Suncor Energy's request to review lower court rulings allowing a lawsuit from three Colorado communities to go forward in state court.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'He's Threatening Prosecutors With Violence': Trump Warns of 'Death and Destruction' If Indicted
"Trump got his supporters to attack the government once," said one ethics watchdog. "He's making it clear that if he's arrested, he's going to try to do it again."
Mar 24, 2023
Government watchdogs on Friday said former President Donald Trump has potentially placed himself in even more legal jeopardyafter he threatened violence if he's charged in a criminal case in New York.
Shortly after midnight on Friday, Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, that potentially "catastrophic" violence would result if he is indicted by a Manhattan grand jury.
"What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former president of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting president in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a crime, when it is known by all that NO crime has been committed, and also known that potential death and destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our country?" Trump said.
He also called Manhattan Attorney General Alvin Bragg "a degenerate psychopath that truly hates the USA."
Bragg's office has presented a grand jury with evidence related to alleged hush-money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign, years after the former president allegedly had a sexual relationship with Daniels.
Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, said in 2018 that he made a $130,000 payment to Daniels. He was reimbursed in 2017 by the Trump Organization.
The former president has made several public statements about the case against him in recent days, saying last weekend that he expected to be indicted on Tuesday and calling for a "protest" in New York, and posting an image in social media on Thursday showing Trump holding a baseball bat next to Bragg's head.
His call for "death and destruction" is his most explicit statement about potential violence, said critics including government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
"He's not being subtle, he's threatening prosecutors with violence... Trump got his supporters to attack the government once," said CREW, referring to Trump's encouragement of his supporters to attend the rally at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 that turned into a violent insurrection aimed at overturning his election loss. "He's making it clear that if he's arrested, he's going to try to do it again."
The group added that Trump's threats of violence "are admissible in court."
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) called on Republicans to clearly "condemn and oppose" Trump's calls for violence, to avoid another violent uprising in his defense.
"Donald Trump's incitement of violence is more direct, explicit, dangerous now than it was before January 6th," said Beyer. "Republican leaders cannot ignore this or wish it away."
According toThe Washington Post, the grand jury is next scheduled to meet on Monday at the earliest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Minnesota Nuclear Plant Shuts Down After New Leak Near Mississippi River
Federal regulators said they are monitoring groundwater for a radioactive compound following the leak.
Mar 24, 2023
The operator of a Minnesota nuclear power plant said the facility would be taken offline Friday to repair a new leak near the Mississippi River, an announcement that came a week after the company and state officials belatedly acknowledged a separate leak that occurred in November.
Xcel Energy insisted in a statement Thursday that the leak at its Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant poses "no risk to the public or the environment," but a team of federal regulators is monitoring the groundwater in the area amid concerns that radioactive materials—specifically tritium—could wind up in drinking water.
Valerie Myers, a senior health physicist with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told a local CBS affiliate that "there are wells between the ones that are showing elevated tritium and the Mississippi that are not showing any elevated levels."
"We are watching that because the ground flow is toward the Mississippi," added Myers.
The Associated Pressreported Friday, that "after the first leak was found in November, Xcel Energy made a short-term fix to capture water from a leaking pipe and reroute it back into the plant for re-use."
"However, monitoring equipment indicated Wednesday that a small amount of new water from the original leak had reached the groundwater," the outlet noted. "Operators discovered that, over the past two days, the temporary solution was no longer capturing all of the leaking water, Xcel Energy said."
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Health said in a statement that they "have no evidence at this point to indicate a current or imminent risk to the public and will continue to monitor groundwater samples."
"Should an imminent risk arise, we will inform the public promptly," the agencies said. "We encourage the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has regulatory oversight of the plant's operations, to share ongoing public communications on the leak and on mitigation efforts to help residents best understand the situation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.