Removing Klamath dams is loss of huge investment

Herald and News by Charles Ehlers June 16, 2021

There is a process underway to remove four hydroelectric facilities from the Klamath River.

The first, starting upriver, is John C. Boyle. Originally named the Big Bend Development, the project was completed on October 1, 1958 with a rated capacity of 88 megawatts. The cost: $70 million.

The second, Copco 1, was placed into operation in the spring of 1918 with a rated capacity of 20 megawatts. By the end of 1922 the second Copco generator No. 1A was placed into operation at 20 megawatts. The cost: $3 million. Copco No. 2 was placed into operation at a rated capacity of 30 megawatts in July 1925.

Lastly, the Iron Gate Development was dedicated on February 3, 1962 with a rated output of 18 megawatts.

Iron Gate serves mainly to regulate flows from the upriver hydroelectric developments which were adversely affecting the river downstream.

This is what these hydroelectric developments would cost today: John C Boyle: $70 million in 1958, multiplied by an inflation rate 805.13%, is $633.6 million in today’s dollars. Copco 1 would cost $52 million, Copco 2 would cost $33.7 million and Iron Gate would cost $124 million.

In total the dams would cost $843 million dollars to build today.

The average annual power production for these developments is around 75 megawatts hourly. At their production level, the annual value of their power is production level, at 10 cents per kilowatt the annual value of the power is $65.7 million.

If hydroelectric developments are removed, that value will disappear and it won’t be back.

A megawatt will power approximately 1,000 homes. 75 megawatts can provide electricity for approximately 225,000 people.

What else? No one knows for sure what the effects of removal will be. The silt behind the dams could poison the river for years or, in the event of a major flood, create a dead zone in the ocean at the mouth of the Klamath River. Who will pay for the cleanup?

The Klamath River Renewal Corporation is a shell corporation formed solely for the purpose of dam removal. Its only assets are funds from PacificCorp customers and taxpayers in general.

When troubles with the removal begin, KRRC will declare bankruptcy. This is why Berkshire Hathaway Energy — which owns PacificCorp which in turn is owned by a Mr. Warren Buffet — is currently petitioning the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for transfer of its ownership to the KRRC.

The states of California and Oregon support this move which will place the burden of cleaning up the removal mess squarely on the tax payer.

Why does the astute Mr. Buffet not want the hydro project? The answer is the dams produce power too cheaply compared to wind and solar. Generally, the more expensive something is, the greater the profit margin and that’s true here. That’s the reason Berkshire-Hathaway is closing it’s coal fired power plants and promoting solar and wind power.

California has a 4,400 megawatt power production deficit. The Klamath River Developments have a peak output of around 180 megawatts, that’s about 4% of California’s problem.

Texas can’t keep the lights on when the windmills freeze. Oregon and Washington are talking about eliminating natural gas for space heating in favor of electricity.

Silly people say hydroelectric isn’t renewable and we’ll find the power somewhere. Isn’t better to develop the new infrastructure prior to decommissioning that which you have?

If you are worried about the salmon, visit the Iron Gate Hatchery when they are spawning and witness the power of nature.

That will soothe the fevered brow and you will know the salmon would transit the developments with the addition of the appropriate infrastructure.

In his book, “50 Years On The Klamath,” John C. Boyle wrote: “Those interested in retaining and developing Klamath’s greatest natural resource, ‘water,’ should not be complacent. Who knows when somebody with plenty of money and plenty of votes may appropriate part of it and put it to beneficial use outside the basin of it’s origin. It is still the envy of much of the arid West.”

This has happened: At any given time California diverts 50% to 80% of the Trinity River, which joins the Klamath at Weitchpec, to the Sacramento River for use beneficial to that state. Arguably this is responsible for most of the environmental woes in the Lower Klamath River.

Removal of these developments will serve as a precedent for removal of the dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers, as well as all the irrigation diversions in the basin.

Then we will find out what life was like around here in the early 1900s.

COMMENTS

 

Erin Ryan

 Wow! Give Mr. Ehlers a medal for covering a complex subject so succinctly. You really painted a great picture of how the dams provide benefit and what will be lost if they are removed. It will be a monument to the insanity of indulging environmental pipe dreams and a runaway federal bureacracy that simply declares scientific outcomes. After all, we don't want to use facts and common sense to avoid a monumental disaster when we can simply claim a future that is not possible. More water and more fish will never be at the end of the dam removal rainbow no matter how many cookies the KRRC dummies serve at their dog and pony shows. They'll disappear faster than any shell corporation in the history of scams when the whole thing goes sideways. I also doubt the taxpayers of CA and OR will shoulder the new superfund site alone in the long run. Thanks again, Charles, for being a smart guy!

Like · Reply · 4d

 

Chrissie Ishida Reynolds

 As a Copco Lake resident this is the very first article that has shown any credible science, research and is totally refreshing to read. Oh my gosh, THANK YOU!!!! These reservoirs are our life line. They provide our fire suppression and support a thriving ecology that is so beneficial to so many species, including the endangered sucker fish which reside in this lake as well as thousands of other species. Today there are warnings about using too much electricity because of the heat and engineered drought. This is not climate change. This is the geoengineering. Look it up. The same power companies are all invested in weather modification. How else do you get one half of the country completely droughted out and the other half is being flooded. By steering the atmospheric rivers of the sky and blaming it on climate change. Thank you for this delightful article. I will be sharing it!

Like · Reply · 4d

 

Cliff Crawford

 Very good article Chuck...thank you.

====================================================

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml