In December, it was announced that the United States government had committed to an agreement impacting the future of the Columbia and Snake River Dams by the states of Oregon, Washington and four Native American tribes. The negotiations leading to this agreement did not include the energy industry responsible for the operation of those dams and the power they generate. Criticism of that style of negotiation has centered on the process, namely that they are taking place in secret, and that not all opinions are being heard. That’s certainly how I feel, but I also want to make sure the strongest argument doesn’t get lost in a process debate: the agreement is bad energy policy that will be felt by our customers.
Low cost. Reliable. Emission free. These three energy attributes are linked to the hydropower from the Columbia River System. They are the things that make the Northwest system the envy of the United States energy industry. They are also the factors that are threatened by the removal of dams before an adequate replacement for their energy output is found. Those who support dam removal would have you believe that the nearly 1,000 megawatts of energy the Lower Snake River Dams put out can be replaced by solar and wind. That’s just not the case. One megawatt of energy does not equal one megawatt of energy when you factor in those three characteristics. We may find 1,000 megawatts of wind and solar to provide, but the cost could lead to customer rate increases of anywhere from 5 to 50%. As long as water is flowing through the turbines, hydro energy can be provided to our customers. While other regions face the possibility of rolling black outs, our power system rolls on. Wind and solar is there when the sun shines and wind blow, but that doesn’t always happen, especially at night or when the weather is freezing and that’s when it’s needed most by our customers. Wind and solar can claim to be emission free, just like hydro, but when they are not generating power, they need to be backed up by natural gas turbines, which emit carbon and have been targeted for elimination under a number of new energy policies. All these factors have been acknowledged by study after study, including some by supporters of dam removal. Yet now, when they need to be heard the most, they are being shut out of the discussion.
Many in the energy industry have centered their complaints under an accurate statement: “Negotiations in the dark, could leave our region in the dark.” It’s catchy, because it’s true. The process is a problem. The policy it creates could be far worse.
by Arie Callaghan, Grays Harbor PUD, District One Commissioner