Power, water inextricably linked in Klamath
By Tam MooreCapital Press October 21, 2005
Capital Press article on electricity rates in the Klamath Basin.
KLAMATH FALLS,
Ore. – From a system built on gravity flow of water starting in 1905,
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Project emerged a century
later so tied to electricity that farmers predict if a discount
electrical power deal goes away, the whole thing will collapse.
“This
won’t work with the projected power rates,” Scott Seus, new chairman of
the Klamath Water User’s Association power committee, said in a report
to the membership last week.
Seus said it’s not just the rates
to individual farmers like himself, it’s the cost irrigation and
drainage districts pay for the elaborate network of electric pumps that
move water around. The existing rates – a half-cent per kilowatt-hour
inside project croplands and 0.75 cents per Kwh beyond but inside the
larger Klamath Project boundaries – are part of the federal license and
a sidebar 50-year contract made with PacifiCorp, the hydro system
operator.
The whole package vanishes in April 2006 unless the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decides to again make it part of
license renewal terms, or PacifiCorp changes its position. The utility
wants to bump rates up to the same agricultural pumping charges paid by
similar customers in Northern California and Oregon service areas.
Seus,
a second-generation farmer from Tulelake, Calif., told the water users
they are paying a lot to keep power rates low. Six consulting lawyers
are at work on parts of the deal, including Paul Simmons, the
Sacramento lawyer who is primary legal adviser to KWUA.
Tariffs
proposed by PacifiCorp, said Seus, would increase power costs as much
as 2,500 percent for some classes of project users.
If that
happens, he predicted, the federal government’s $75 million investment
with farmers in water conservation in the past four years will sit
idle. So, he said, would the drainage pumps around which the project
was built. It reclaimed over 200,000 acres of former lakebed and
wetlands over a 50-year period. Most of the reclaimed land is farmed or
part of national wildlife refuges.
“If 100 years (of the project) is a milestone, then power is the cornerstone of our success,” said Seus.
Most
irrigators know little more than public statements about how KWUA is
doing in the battle to retain “a justifiably low-cost power rate.”
That’s because the association and its power committee are part of
PacifiCorp’s closed-door negotiations to wrap up Klamath issues in
settlement agreements that become part of the FERC license. Parties are
sworn to silence until there’s a deal.
PacifiCorp has indicated
based on past relicensing experience that those agreements need to be
reached a month or two before actual license renewal dates. FERC began
formal study of the Klamath renewal application 15 months ago.
Steve
Kandra, the grain and hay farmer who serves as KWUA president, told
members that directors feel preserving power rates is equally important
with assuring there’s a dependable water supply as the project starts
its second century.
The PacifiCorp license renewal application
proposes distancing the company from BuRec water operations. Under the
present contract, the power company operates the dam that creates the
main project irrigation diversion, running two generators at the Link
River Dam site here. It also operates a regulating dam at Keno,
downstream from where project return flows rejoin the river.
The
primary electrical power generation comes from a large plant in the
Klamath River Canyon near the state line and from turbines installed at
three dams in California. All operate primarily with water released by
the Klamath Project.
It’s that tie, Seus has argued, that links
power rates with water. Elsewhere in the West, BuRec owns the turbines
at most projects and sells electricity to reduce project costs. Rural
electric cooperatives around projects get discount rates to pass on to
irrigators. At Klamath, the first deal put generation with California
Oregon Power Co., PacifiCorp’s predecessor, with the FERC contract term
delivering a similar benefit.