Shocking News: PacifiCorp Attacks Klamath Dam Removal Study
By Tom Chandler on Mar 13, 2007 in Environment, News
I really had nothing to say today, and was even contemplating an “Open Thread” post where I basically abdicate my content-providing responsibility and throw the weight on your shoulders.
Fortunately, PacifiCorp decided to open its corporate piehole, providing fodder for a post on corporate morality (yes, we think the phrase is funny too).
From the L.A. Times: Owner of Klamath River dams attacks study:
Citing a study by Christensen Associates Energy Consulting LLC, the company said the commission’s review was marred by errors and inconsistencies in the pricing of replacement power, failure to include future carbon emission taxes as part of replacement-energy costs and an inappropriate discount rate for financing.
The Underground wants it known we’re shocked (shocked, mind you), that an Energy Industry Consultant would suggest a power utility may have been wronged at the hands of a regulatory process that is timidly edging toward the salvation of two largely destroyed salmon runs (and don’t forget the steelhead).
Perhaps our Energy Industry Consultant could figure the lifetime costs to commercial fisheries and local tourist-related impacts should we leave the four Klamath River dams in place (even with fish ladders, which don’t address water quality or temperature issues).
Or not. Probably not. That’s my guess.
We’re Not Done With Nestle
I don’t want to turn the Underground into one of those jibbering, spit-filled “I hate everyone” blogs, but I’ve been trading largely civil e-mails with a Nestle representative who insists they’re the best thing since Mother Theresa, and any opposition to their water bottling plant is simply misinformed.
I think he’s full of crap, and you’ll see more from me in days to come.
The Weather. Let’s Talk About the Weather.
It’s perfect, gorgeous weather out there–warm enough that I’m opening the doors and windows every afternoon to air out the house.
And yes, the runoff is driving the river higher, but it’s still plenty fishable.
Plus, I’ve been hearing good things about the local lakes, and there’s a chance for that kind of field trip here in the near future.
See you on the lake, Tom Chandler
Technorati Tags: pacificorp, klamath, klamath river, klamath dams, nestle
heddon17 | Mar 13, 2007 | Reply
Lets see now. PacifcCorp says that An Energy Industry Consultant’s study suggests that the original review has some flaws, etc.
Wow, big surprise there…….
Brian
Tom Chandler | Mar 13, 2007 | Reply
I like the way they drag out all the “dark and stormy night” boogeymen. My favorite bit?
The “future carbon emissions taxes” which don’t even exist yet. (Booga boooga booga…)
Dave Neal | Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
Ahhhh…I just want these dams to away. Can`t these people (PacificCorp) just do the right thing? I have been following this story, here and on other blogs/news sources. What are the chances of these of these dams coming down? I know it may just be a guess, but seriously, is there any hope? Imagine how awesome it would be and the precedence it would set.
Clay | Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
Quick question Gentlemen. I am from Michigan and do not know the circumstances. Do these dams contribute to your electricity or are they idle? Do they contribute to your well being in any way? Just curious.
Clay | Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
And Nestle, what did you expect Tom, these guys are just plain sleezy. Thier PR guy is not going to incriminate them. We all know what is going on and have to get “mad as hell and not take it anymore!” The only problem is the rest of the world is too lazy to do anything about it, they agree with us they are just to lazy!!!
isaac roman | Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
those issues bring me down, but it should be those dams instead, and nestle licks b-lls, but now to some positive——- the lakes are good but ever hear of lake runs—they’re here and pushing up in numbers—–big beautiful ancestors of the steelhead that were trapped behind a nother damn dam. water flows are a little lower this year, so fish have been jumping the barrier falls easier. the big mystery is what fly are they going to take today—-stubborn lake runs, but i love the challenge—–soon to come–fish ladders at shasta and box canyon dams
Tom Chandler | Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Clay: the four Klamath dams generate (supposedly) 150-160 megawatts of electicity per year (1%-2% of PacifiCorp’s generation), but under the flow regimes required after relicensing, the ability to generate during peak need times will be compromised.
Essentially, they’re not big projects, and the cost to fisheries (commercial and sport/tourist) far outweighs the relatively small amounts of energy generated.
Isaac: Wayne and I have often discussed the possibility that the remnant steelhead runs spend time in the lake and move into the river, but without DNA testing, we’ll never know for sure.
Clay | Mar 16, 2007 | Reply
Thanks for the clarification Tom. I do understand you Cali guys have electricity issues (mostly summer?). Anyways I must concur…”DOWN WITH THE DAMS!!!”
Tom Chandler | Mar 16, 2007 | Reply
Yeah, we have electricity issues when power companies help create them (why there haven’t been any indictments from the “big blackouts” mystifies me).
Still, this state could afford to go on a diet. It’s cheaper and easier to save energy than it is to generate it….
Dan Hansen | Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
Hi, I’m the supposed apologist for the energy industry. Here’s some background that you may find helpful in your future criticisms of me. The CEC commissioned the report that we reviewed, and they specified that it only include the financial impacts to PacifiCorp and its ratepayers. That’s why we don’t look at “the lifetime costs to commercial fisheries and local tourist-related impacts” — because they didn’t include it in their analysis. The analysis that they did conduct contained errors. Not differences of opinion, but things that were just plain mistakes, like typing in the wrong number for a cost. We pointed out all of the errors and quantified their magnitude, and if you’d like to request the spreadsheet from the authors, you can find them for yourself. Our report — which I’m SURE you’ve read in its entirety — expresses no opinion about what ought to be done with the dams. It corrects a bad analysis. So unless you’d like to take the position that a bad analysis is fine as long as it supports your position, I suggest you do your homework before opening your piehole.
Tom Chandler | Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
Ahh Dan.
Your name has been cleared from the apologist category. Officially. I’m sorry for that single, over-the-top statement.
However, you’ll forgive me for rejecting the rest of PacifiCorp’s shrill commentary. And with eying Christensen’s report with some small amount of cynicism.
First, Christensen is an energy industry consultant, correct?
As in: “Economic and Engineering Analysis and Consulting for Today’s Energy Business”? (Yes, I researched this before writing the original post.)
And you do feature many energy companies on your client roster? That’s a fact, right? They help pay the bills?
In an era when a corporation can find a consultant willing to testify that cigarettes don’t cause cancer, isn’t a healthy skepticism about PacifiCorp’s “facts” warranted?
Especially since PacifiCorp has shown little regard for “facts” in the past?
Did you read PacifiCorp’s press release? Are you in agreement with the language they used to describe your report?
For example, PacifiCorp characterized the CEC report as “riddled with errors.”
Are you comfortable with that characterization? Because “riddled” isn’t a specific (or very factual) word.
It’s actually a pretty judgmental word. It’s a far cry from a few mis-typed numbers.
And wow, while we’re on the subject of facts, we both know I didn’t fault Christensen for not doing a “lifetime impacts” study regarding commercial fisheries.
That referred to the most farcical aspect of this whole exercise; that the economic impact of PacifiCorp’s dams on fisheries barely registers in the process.
Talk about your bad analysis.
As for your oh-so-helpful suggestions about “doing my homework,” I looked for Christensen’s report on the CEC Web site before posting, but my searches turned up empty.
If it was paid for by a government agency, and public property, why didn’t you simply send me a copy?
Alas, you didn’t, so all we’ve got is PacifiCorp’s hype-soaked press release (”we” being the people who get to stare at a fishless river).
And oh yes, the original CEC report (which I read).
And now, the word of an energy industry consultant (but one who isn’t willing to add any information to the mix).
As for me doing my homework, let’s do this. You send me your home phone number, and every time I’m up late at night researching Nestle’s latest spin, or PacifiCorp’s latest line, Westland’s latest dam-raising maneuver, I’ll call you so you know I’m “doing my homework.”
I won’t bother you with sessions that end before 10:00. And I promise not to remind you that–unlike you–I’m not getting paid to do it.
Deal?
Finally, since you’re fond of them, here’s one more fact.
I live in an area where there used to be millions of salmon. Now there are barely any.
And the company that’s largely responsible seems interested only in making as much money as possible off the situation without rectifying it.
Dan Hansen | Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
Wow, for a guy whose tagline is “rarely accurate”, you sure took the homework comment hard. OK, I’ll return the favor and absolve you of the need to do homework. In the spirit of goodwill, I’ll even take back the “piehole” crack and call it a truce.
Yes, we work for utilities. But two of my current clients are public utility commissions, which is kind of like working for both the cigarette companies and the Surgeon General in your example. The truth is that we can’t afford to be apologists or biased. This report, like most of our others, is going to be closely scrutinized by the intervening parties. If the consensus view is that we’re biased or wrong, we have a tough time getting work in the future. We turn down projects rather than lie.
As for the press release, PacifiCorp’s choice of words to describe the conclusions may not consist of technical terms, but the tone that one gets from it is about right. There are a lot of mistakes in the CEC (really M.Cubed) analysis. I should note that we found large mistakes that work in both directions. The fact that the balance of the errors shifted the analysis away from the original conclusion should, to a third party, be equally likely to indicate the possibility of bias on the part of the original authors.
Finally, your original posting was a little vague in terms of who was at fault for the nature of the analysis. I’d say that “[p]erhaps our Energy Industry Consultant could figure the lifetime costs to commercial fisheries and local tourist-related impacts should we leave the four Klamath River dams in place” was more of a comment on us than the CEC or PacifiCorp, so I don’t apologize for offering a correction on the matter.
I will behave like a consultant in one way, though, and close my commenting on the matter with that. I’ll leave it to the CEC, PacifiCorp, FERC, and other intervenors to decide whether our report adds anything worthwhile to the debate, and to determine the extent of the overall debate.
Enjoy your blogging, and I apologize for my harsh reaction to your initial posting.
Tom Chandler | Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
Dan, I appreciate your position. I think we’ve hashed it all out. It is a shame that you’re going to bow out, but I certainly understand your position. A delicate one.
But it would be nice to have an insider around to explain some of the process.
Frankly, the relicensing process is a maddening one. Considering the direct economic impacts of the dams on commercial and sport fisheries, it’s sometimes difficult to deal with PacifiCorp’s reticence.
No, I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes when dam removal time comes, but then, they have profited from the dams all these years.
Everything ends eventually.
Good luck. And feel free to drop by and comment, even if under an alias. I’d appreciate it.