Northwest Debate: Is Hydropower 'Clean'?

Northwest Debate: Is Hydropower 'Clean'?

Apr 24 - International Herald Tribune

The power company that owns four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River says the dams provide a crucial source of so-called clean energy at a time when carbon emissions have become one of the world's foremost environmental concerns.

But the American Indians, fishermen and environmentalists who want the dams removed point to what has happened since the first one was built nearly 90 years ago: Endangered salmon have been blocked from migrating; Indian livelihoods have been threatened; and, more recently, the commercial fishing industry along the Oregon and California coasts has been devastated. They say the dams are anything but clean. They say the river is a mess.

"Should we have to sacrifice water quality for air quality?" said Craig Tucker, who is coordinating efforts by the Karuk tribe of Northern California to have the dams taken down. "Should Indians and family fishermen be the ones who have to sacrifice to address this problem?"

Whether the power company, PacifiCorp, wants to keep the dams because they improve air quality or simply because they are inexpensive to operate is not clear. But emphasizing an environmental argument that touches on climate change has added a new wrinkle to the longstanding debate over dam removal in the Pacific Northwest. In a region where plenty of residents measured their "carbon footprints" long before it was fashionable, PacifiCorp is suggesting that righting one environmental wrong could lead to another, one that could affect people more than fish.

The Klamath dams provide enough power to serve about 70,000 homes, a small fraction of PacifiCorp's 1.6 million customers, which span six Western states. But the company says only coal or natural gas is likely to be reliable enough to replace the river, which hits hydroelectric turbines four times on its way to the sea from east of the snow-capped Cascade Range.

Those who support removing the Klamath dams largely dismiss the clean-energy argument, saying the benefits of removal outweigh losing a relatively small source of hydropower. They note that PacifiCorp's increased interest in the environment comes as recent rulings by judges and federal fisheries agencies have given new momentum for removal. The company's federal license to run the dams expired last year, and the government has said PacifiCorp must build fish ladders over the four dams to get a new license, a proposition that could cost $300 million and reduce the power the dams generate, potentially making removal a less costly choice.

Yet whatever is spent to restore salmon, and whether the solution is fish ladders or dam removal, the company has said that its customers will ultimately bear the cost, and the carbon.

"It's a conundrum in many ways," said Dave Kvamme, a spokesman for PacifiCorp. "Taking away a very useful resource like the Klamath puts more pressure on us to build something else or buy it on the market."

The Klamath runs more than 250 miles, or 400 kilometers, from southwest Oregon to the California coast, connecting two states where power and water supply have long been contentious issues. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Governor Theodore Kulongoski of Oregon are helping lead the push for clean fuel sources. Last year, California passed a law requiring a 25 percent reduction in the state's carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. Oregon is also considering carbon reduction targets as well as requiring increasing amounts of alternative energy.

Both governors have said removing the Klamath dams should be an option, but they have not taken firm positions, and a summit they have urged on the fate of the river has yet to happen. Earlier this year, Schwarzenegger proposed spending about $4 billion to build two dams on the San Joaquin River for water storage, an idea environmentalists have long opposed.

The Northwest, where more than 80 percent of the power generated comes from hydroelectricity, has long had some of the lowest electricity rates in the nation. It has also been the setting for epic environmental fights that reflect the tension across the region's topographic and demographic divides.

"We think of ourselves as ahead of the curve, as ecotopia, when it comes to saving endangered species, like the spotted owl," said John Findlay, a history professor at the University of Washington. "But these things are much more complicated when we try to actually solve them."

Findlay said the region's identity as an environmental leader was rooted in cities like Portland and Seattle, not in the areas where rivers provide power and water for farms.

"They're the most sympathetic to taking down the dams," he said of big-city residents. "But they're also the people who are kind of taking cheap power for granted. "

The Klamath dams are among the most controversial in a much broader dam-removal effort led by environmentalists, American Indians and commercial fishermen.

Dams on the Elwa and White Salmon Rivers in Washington and the Sandy River in Oregon are among those set to be removed in the next several years. Some of these have been fought over for more than a decade, but in many ways they are only steppingstones to larger targets, including the dams on the Klamath and four on the Lower Snake River in eastern Washington.

More fish could be saved by removing the bigger dams, but more power would be lost, too.

Supporters of removal say conservation measures and new sources of energy like wind and sun can replace lost hydroelectric power. Dam owners in the region, including private utilities and the federal government, say such clean energy sources cannot replace dams.

The use of wind power is expanding quickly, but its effectiveness depends in part on having another steady energy source during lulls in the breeze.

Wind can be backed up with natural gas and coal, said Scott Corwin, executive director of the Public Power Council, which represents consumer-owned utilities around the Columbia River. "But there you have emissions, too."

Last month, Bill Fehrman, the president of PacifiCorp, said replacing power from the Klamath would "cost our customers more money, and potentially a lot more money," and "could result in adding combustion emissions to the environment."

PacifiCorp has said it is not opposed to removal, but it would need approval from regulating commissions in six states before it could pass on costs of dam removal to its customers. Blending the cost and climate-change arguments could strengthen its case.

Salmon and carbon are not all that is at risk. The river and the dams support an elaborate irrigation system started by the U.S. government more than a century ago. River water provides for cattle pastures, alfalfa fields and a wildlife preserve, among other needs.

When Edward Bartell and his family moved to southwest Oregon from California to raise beef cattle 30 years ago, land, water and power were inexpensive. Not anymore. An acre that sold for $500 not long ago - a price equivalent to $1,200 per hectare - now might list for $5,000. The water supply is at the mercy of an ever denser maze of environmental regulations intended to protect fish. And the price of power, delivered wholesale thanks to the Klamath dams, rose sharply last year when PacifiCorp did not renew contracts that had been in place with farmers for half a century.

Bartell shook his head when asked whether families who moved here to farm knew that the dams might not last forever.

"It was unthinkable," Bartell said. "Obviously, nobody would have come."