The Biden administration said officials historically gave “little, if any, consideration” to impacts on tribal fishing. But some sought deliberately to upend the harvest, according to documents obtained by ProPublica and Oregon Public Broadcasting.
There’s another whole aspect to the recurring pushes to remove the dams that’s pretty much always left out too.
Likely the biggest beneficiaries if the dams were removed would be power companies, who, even with the dams generally operating at a tiny fraction of capacity, are stuck having to sell cheap hydroelectric power at low rates.
If the dams were removed, they’d be able to justify contracting (often with their own subsidiaries) for the construction of expensive new power plants with lower capacity and higher operating costs and would then be able to convince the PUCs to grant them massive rate increases.
Ah, but I’m sure that has nothing to do with the mysteriously well-funded campaigns to remove the dams that get a new round of publicity every few years…
Not saying you’re wrong, but just to add, [this article]
(https://www.opb.org/article/2022/11/18/demolition-plan-of-four-klamath-river-dams-moves-forward/) gives a good account of the issues with several dams along one river. The electric company saves money by demolishing compared to building required fish ladders. They were already expecting less and less power from the dams due to low water levels, which may be drought or competition with irrigation. The dams only accounted for 2% of the electricity they sold, so I’m not sure how big the replacement project will be, if any.
One thing to note is that activism like this does normally happen in “spurts”. The legislative cycle is very long and most projects that eventually achieve government backing also require a lot, even matching, private money. Backers may go through several rounds of hype before catching the attention of a big local family or other donor that makes the whole thing plausible enough for the government to act on.
There’s another whole aspect to the recurring pushes to remove the dams that’s pretty much always left out too.
Likely the biggest beneficiaries if the dams were removed would be power companies, who, even with the dams generally operating at a tiny fraction of capacity, are stuck having to sell cheap hydroelectric power at low rates.
If the dams were removed, they’d be able to justify contracting (often with their own subsidiaries) for the construction of expensive new power plants with lower capacity and higher operating costs and would then be able to convince the PUCs to grant them massive rate increases.
Ah, but I’m sure that has nothing to do with the mysteriously well-funded campaigns to remove the dams that get a new round of publicity every few years…
Not saying you’re wrong, but just to add, [this article] (https://www.opb.org/article/2022/11/18/demolition-plan-of-four-klamath-river-dams-moves-forward/) gives a good account of the issues with several dams along one river. The electric company saves money by demolishing compared to building required fish ladders. They were already expecting less and less power from the dams due to low water levels, which may be drought or competition with irrigation. The dams only accounted for 2% of the electricity they sold, so I’m not sure how big the replacement project will be, if any.
One thing to note is that activism like this does normally happen in “spurts”. The legislative cycle is very long and most projects that eventually achieve government backing also require a lot, even matching, private money. Backers may go through several rounds of hype before catching the attention of a big local family or other donor that makes the whole thing plausible enough for the government to act on.