Logo
ISSUE #35.04 • NEWS •
[ENERGY, POLITICS, THE SCORE]

Big Dam Fight


The Legislature may end a long-festering dispute affecting one billionaire, a half-million Oregonians and more fish than you can count.

Recently in "The Score"

January 7th, 2009
Estate Of Denial | Think prosecuting elder abuse will be easy under Newly passed Measure 57? Maybe not.3 comments

December 31st, 2008
From Academia To Zetamania | WW revisits three cover stories from 2008.0 comments

December 24th, 2008
The Big Turnoff | Can’t pay for heat or other utilities this winter? Expect a cold, cold response.0 comments

December 10th, 2008
Snow Job | A Molalla couple fights to keep Snowball but Deserts Juanita, Bonita and Lolita, their pot-bellied pigs.2 comments

November 26th, 2008
A Mess With Taxes | How can Oregon give a $10 million tax break to a company whose affiliate may owe taxpayers $20 million?5 comments

September 3rd, 2008
Elephants Suffer, On All Fronts.1 comment

August 27th, 2008
Taking Your Share and Then Some1 comment

August 20th, 2008
Teenage Drinkers, Bikini Coffee and Cuban Showgirls0 comments

August 13th, 2008
Trucker Bombs: Still Preferable to Russian Bombs.0 comments

August 6th, 2008
Successful people doing stupid things.2 comments



IMAGE: waltonportfolio.com
BY NIGEL JAQUISS | njaquiss at wweek dot com

[December 3rd, 2008]

When the Legislature meets next month, its to-watch list will include a fight pitting the world’s richest man against several of the state’s biggest companies in a dispute affecting 550,000 Oregonians and uncounted numbers of salmon.

Multibillionaire investor Warren Buffett, who owns PacifiCorp, will send a team to the Capitol to ratify a tentative deal his utility struck last month with the feds and the states of Oregon and California to demolish four dams the utility owns on the Klamath River in 2020.

Standing in the way of the Legislature approving the proposed deal are some of Oregon’s biggest employers, represented by the group Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities. Among those employers: Georgia Pacific, Weyerhaeuser and Intel.

Art Sasse, a PacifiCorp spokesman, says the agreement caps ratepayer costs for removing the dams at $200 million, a limit he says is good news for the utility’s 550,000 Oregon customers.

And Sasse calls the deal a cheaper, simpler alternative than relicensing the dams. The dams have been a flashpoint for more than a decade between farmers in southern Oregon, who want the water, and fish advocates, who say the dams kill fish with low water levels and poor water quality. He says PacifiCorp reversed its earlier reluctance to remove the dams when the opposition became overwhelming.

The dams proposal has divided environmental groups. Some, such as Oregon Wild and WaterWatch, say the deal provides insufficient water and habitat for fish. Yet some California groups favor ratification of the proposal.

“Opponents of the dams made it clear that they would make it as uneconomic as possible to keep them” by requiring $300 million worth of fish ladders, Sasse says. “And the states and the feds made it clear that they wanted the dams out.”

ICNU attorney Melinda Davison, however, says Oregon ratepayers will bear a disproportionate share of the cost.

“There’s not enough time in the day to describe how badly Oregonians are getting abused in this deal,” Davison says.

Historically, she says, costs and benefits of capital projects such as dam removals are spread proportionately across PacifiCorp’s six-state system.

But in the case of dam removal, Oregon customers could bear 90 percent of the $200 million cost, even though Oregon accounts for only about 26 percent of PacifiCorp’s system.

Bob Jenks, director of the Citizens Utility Board of Oregon, which represents individual ratepayers, agrees with ICNU’s Davison.















icon Story continues below

advertisement

advertisement

“There’s a mismatch of costs and benefits,” Jenks says. “The benefits of the dams flow to other states in their system, such as Washington, that aren’t paying a dime.”

Sasse calls that argument a red herring, adding, “This is an agreement between two states, not the six that are in our full PacifiCorp territory.”

The allocation of costs roughly approximates the ratio of PacifiCorp ratepayers in Oregon and larger California.

Although the impetus for PacifiCorp’s agreement to remove its dams was the river’s health, ICNU’s members are most concerned with power costs (ICNU is neutral on whether dams should be removed). Davison, whose clients were excluded from talks between PacifiCorp and government negotiators, says the deal heavily favors PacifiCorp because the utility wouldn’t be on the financial hook for potential legal problems such as environmental messes associated with dam removal. She warns that could mean passed-on costs above the $200 million ratepayer cap.

The agreement calls for California to seek voter approval of a $250 million bond to cover dam removal costs above the $200 million cap for customer expenses. But passage of such a bond isn’t guaranteed.

PacifiCorp, Oregon’s second-largest utility behind PGE, has pushed back hard against Davison, a longtime nemesis. Utility officials have accused her of having a conflict of interest because, in addition to ICNU, she also represents a group called the Klamath Off-Project Water Users, a group of farmers who historically get very cheap electricity from the dams.

“There is no conflict,” Davison says. She says both clients are aware of each other and have waived any potential conflict. And, Davison adds, they have the same fundamental interest—low-priced power.

Sasse says PacifiCorp’s proposal addresses the bottom-line concerns of Davison’s clients and all PacifiCorp clients.

“It’s a matter of understanding that they pay less under our proposal than in any other scenario,” Sasse says.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Ted Kulongoski says the legislation authorizing the Klamath dam removal is a “priority for the governor” and will be introduced early in January.

FACT: ICNU’s Salem lobbyist is Mark Nelson, who crushed the Healthy Kids’ ballot initiative last year.

 

Rate This Story
5 average/1 vote

 
read all 2 comments | add your comment
 

RECENT COMMENTS ON “Big Dam Fight”

1

I want to know why Oregon is disinvesting in hydroelectricity while PGE is putting in new natural gas projects like Port Westward. The chain of reasoning seems %100 backward to me. Natural gas is pric...

Kyle Sullivan, Dec 7th, 2008 7:23pm
2

Kyle, Clueless much? The article says the fish are dying, no fish means no food.

lezlee dutton, Nov 12th, 2009 10:26pm
 
 
 





Recently in Willamette Week
December 31st 1969Washington State | The Canada of Oregon has it all—a Stonehenge replica, a longboarder's concrete wet dream and dark, damp underground lava caves. Vive les rocks.
December 31st 1969Oregon's Outer Edges | Crater Lake. Hell's Canyon. Wallowa and Steens mountain ranges. Hell, yeah.
December 31st 1969Central Oregon/High Desert | No rain, plenty of snow, obsidian flows and great local beer. The folks from the real eastside know how to unbend outside.
December 31st 1969Great Cascades/Columbia Gorge | With plenty of room to roam—and hot springs for your weary feet—it's the place to ramble and relax for the weekend.
December 31st 1969Willamette Valley | Monks, tracks, tubing and wine make the fertile strip a virile place to play.
December 31st 1969Stumptown | Tons of public parks, an extinct volcano and nude beach volleyball to keep you jolly. Get out and collect those merit badges, without leaving the city.
December 31st 1969The Coast | The beaches are public. You own them. Go play—hike in the old-growth forests.
December 31st 1969Cycle Tour 101: Your on-bike guide to Highway 101 | To ride the greatest bike route in Oregon, you need to get out of Portland.
December 31st 1969Doggin' It | What happens when a Portland running club jogs with pooches from the pound?
December 31st 1969Over the Edge | Sam Drevo will paddle yr ass.