WATERWATCH OF OREGON and OREGON WILD URGE YOU TO AMEND SB 76 TO HELP RESTORE THE KLAMATH RIVER AND PROTECT RATEPAYERS 

WaterWatch of Oregon and Oregon Wild support removal of PacifiCorp’s lower four hydropower dams on the Klamath River.  However, to support SB 76, the bill must be amended as follows: 

SB 76 has three important problems as drafted:

1. SB 76 allows ratepayer money collected for dam removal to be reallocated to cover dam relicensing costs if dam removal does not occur.  SB 76 should be amended to require that ratepayer funds collected for dam removal only be used for dam removal.  Further, collected funds should be refunded to the ratepayers if the funds are not used for dam removal. The bill currently allows money collected for dam removal to be reallocated to cover prudently incurred relicensing costs, but fails to specify which statutory process will control this possible reallocation of ratepayer money.  Instead of inviting problems if PacifiCorp abandons dam removal, SB 76 should require that dam removal funds collected from ratepayers be refunded if not they are not applied to dam removal.

2. SB 76 should specify which laws apply to the collection and possible redirection of various ratepayer funds.  SB 76 should clearly state which statutory provisions will be followed if PacifiCorp collects money from ratepayers and subsequently attempts to use these collected funds for the costs of dam relicensing. SB 76 uses specific statutory citations in some sections, yet fails to specify the statutory procedure to be followed if funds are to be redirected to the costs of relicensing. This is especially important as the Agreement in Principle (AIP) on the Klamath Dams provides many off-ramps for PacifiCorp that could allow the company to bypass significant Clean Water Act proceedings for several years and avoid dam removal. Oregon must ensure that PacifiCorp is held accountable pursuant to existing rate case standards. SB 76 must state that any rate recoverable costs, and any reallocation of collected funds from one purpose to another, will be evaluated and approved by the PUC pursuant to the standard PUC ratemaking procedures set forth in ORS 757.210.

3. SB 76 ties dam removal to the deeply flawed draft Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.  The draft Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) reflects the unbalanced process in which it was created. Linking dam removal to the controversial and expensive draft KBRA creates an uncertain future for dam removal. Controversial provisions of the draft KBRA include a water deal that promises water to irrigators but provides insufficient flows for the Klamath River and its fish; an attempt to lock in large scale commercial agriculture on Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges; several hidden special contracts; groundwater pumping standards that are inconsistent with Oregon water law; and many more. SB 76 should clearly state that its provisions are in no way linked to the unbalanced and deeply flawed draft KBRA.

WE URGE THE LEGISLATURE TO AMEND SB 76 TO ADDRESS THESE IMPORTANT PROBLEMS

Contact:   
Lisa Brown, WaterWatch of Oregon, 503-295-4039
Steve Pedery, Oregon Wild, 503-283-6343