Tonight we're going to be talking about
power, both political power and the
other kind that turns on the lights.
2 leading politicians in
Washington state came out with a
long-awaited report yesterday.
It focused on whether it would
make sense to tear down four
dams on the lower Snake River,
which many environmentalists want to do,
or to keep the dams and their
dependable green power generation,
which lots of utilities want.
That's tonight's big story.
The bottom line?
Senator Patty Murray and Governor
Jay Inslee agreed that it is not
feasible to tear down the dams,
at least not right now.
But it could be in the future.
Let's set the scene here.
The four dams we're talking about are in
the southeastern part of Washington state,
along the Snake River there and not far
from where it flows into the Columbia.
The Army Corps of Engineers built
the dams back in the 1960s and 70s.
In recent years,
there has been a growing push to
get rid of the dams to help salmon.
Plans which are in danger of going extinct
and the orca whales are the killer whales,
which live in Puget Sound
and feed on the salmon.
Just six weeks ago we showed you
some of the ads that started running
around the northwest in an effort
to push back against a movement.
It was funded by the utilities that
get the electricity from those dams
and they want to keep them running.
The future of the dams evolved into a
bitter fight over the last few years,
with huge lawsuits and angry
accusations from both sides.
That is why Murray and Governor Inslee
got involved to try and sort out.
Exactly what's happening and what's possible?
It took input from thousands of people,
including communities, tribes, and,
as they like to say, other stakeholders.
Don't you just love that term?
Some of their findings include
these statements about breaching,
which, by the way,
is a fancy word for tearing something down.
Here's the first one.
The joint federal state process
makes clear that with adequate
investment and coordination,
it is possible to replace most of
the services and benefits provided
by the dams in the event of a breach,
and to mitigate the loss of others.
But we are adamant that in any
circumstance with a lower Snake River,
dams would be breached and the
replacement and mitigation of
their benefits must be pursued.
Before decommissioning and
breaching also breach is not a
feasible option in the near term,
and replacing the energy production of
the Lower Snake River dams is achievable
given our existing commitments,
the amount of regional clean energy
generation already in development,
and the federal resources available.
But moving from the realm of the
possible into reality requires getting
these resources built in an effective,
efficient manner.
Now,
I know that's not the most riveting
TV that you've ever seen,
but I thought it was important to share
the key points of the report with you.
Now we can talk about what comes next.
Murray and Inslee have pledged to take
steps to move the process forward,
things like improving fish passages
for the salmon and creating better
habitat in the rivers for them.
Also,
Inslee has pledged to try to get
legislation passed that will make
it faster and easier to build clean
energy resources and to put a power
lines to send that energy around.
But they offered no timeline and no
guarantees. As you might imagine,
this conclusion was closely
watched by both sides.
Today I talked with two environmental
groups and an organization
representing the power companies.
Let's start with the power folks.
It was really a great day for the region and
not exactly a shocking conclusion.
Kurt Miller is executive director
of Northwest River Partners.
That's a trade group representing
more than 100 community owned
power companies in Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, Montana,
Utah, Nevada and Wyoming.
His group wants to keep the dams and
they're pleased that the political
leaders found it was not feasible to
tear them down in the near future.
And that's the message that we've
been trying to share all along,
is that, like, let you know, listen,
we understand what people are trying
to do and salmon are super important.
But there are other things that are
also super important in terms of
trying to achieve our clean energy
goals and keep electricity costs
affordable and provide irrigation
to farmers and all those things.
And and essentially they
they agreed with that.
Now the electric industry sometimes
argues that the power from those dams are
critically important and the political
leaders agreed with them at least.
For now, but it might surprise you to learn
how little energy they actually produce.
Do you know? I'm sure you do.
What is the percentage?
Of energy that the dams supply
to the region because I think
it's pretty small, isn't it?
Yeah. You know, so you hear
all sorts of different things.
And so I think it's a great
question and I think the
real question, though should
be pivot. Mr what's the answer to that?
I can answer both. I can answer
the question that you asked and
also the question I want to answer.
OK, let's start with the one I asked
you. Yes, Sir. Ask was what percentage
of generation to the dams provide to
the region and that that percentage for
public power customers I think is about
so customers who get their electricity
from a community owned utility and
most of those get their power from
the Bonneville Power Administration.
I think the damage represents
about 11% of that generation.
They also on on an entire regional basis
where you include investor owned utilities
and others and they pick that numbers.
In the neighborhood of four to 5%.
So really not that much in the bigger
scheme of things for the whole region.
But the point that he wanted to
make is that in the coming years,
as more coal plants shut down,
those dams will have a larger percentage
of dependable power for the region
and will become very important.
That's because wind turbines
only make electricity,
of course, when the wind blows,
and solar only makes power when the sun
shines and the industrial batteries
are not yet good enough to store
significant amounts of that energy.
That's all accurate, by the way.
All right. Now to the environmental side.
You'd think that the report's conclusions
would be maybe a stinging defeat,
but they are definitely spinning
it as a victory.
I was really excited when I read
the recommendations that Senator
Murray and Governor Insley put out
around the lower Snake River dam.
Bluff. She's an advocate with
the group Environment Washington,
which is fighting to protect salmon
and the orcas who live in Puget Sound.
The group supports tearing
down those Snake River dams.
I'm really comforted that Senator
Murray and Governor Inslee have
publicly recognized that extinction
of salmon and orcas are unacceptable,
and that they are committed to finding a
viable way to breach Lower Snake River dams.
Although I think you're putting a
pretty good spin on it because they
said there's no way to do it now.
Maybe someday in the future,
they did say. We're not in a
place where we can do that now.
We do need to replace the services
that these dams provide and that
it is possible to do that we can.
There are many scenarios on the
table where we can replace the energy
services that these dams provide.
But none of those scenarios
she mentioned will solve the
problem in the short term,
and it's not clear how fast the
political leaders will move to
make more clean energy possible.
So this is a form
of progress. You know, five years ago,
no politician in the Pacific Northwest
would say Snake River dam removal out loud.
There's a bit more spin from Miles Johnson.
He's a senior attorney with the
conservation group Columbia Riverkeeper,
which also supports removing the dams.
The group is part of a federal
lawsuit trying to get them torn down.
All the sides involved in the
lawsuit have taken a pause now
to see how things shake out.
But Johnson said ending that
pause is a possibility if there's
no action towards a solution.
I asked if his group is disappointed
by the Murray Inslee report.
I think what
we're disappointed in is the lack of a plan
for replacing the the dams electricity,
the lack of a timeline for doing that and
and the lack of any kind of clearly defined
goal for what replacement looks like.
You know Columbia Riverkeeper and
more broadly I think the most of
the proponents for dam removal,
you know we've never said just
bulldoze the dams out and forget
about the consequences. You know,
it's always been about a comprehensive.
Solution that you know invests
in renewable energy and Pacific
Northwest and replaces, you know,
the power and the the benefits of those dams.
But we need,
we need to make a plan to do that.
So what's the future hold for the dams?
Well, for now, they're going to
keep running like they always have.
And we'll watch to see if Governor
Inslee does indeed introduce
legislation making it easier to
build those renewable energy plants.
And there's no doubt environmental groups are
going to be watching that closely as well.
So what's your take on this?
Do you want the dams to
come down no matter what?
Do you like the measured approach
of replacing the energy before
tearing the dams down?
Maybe something else?
Let us know, William.
Our e-mail is thestory@kgw.com.
Our voicemail is 5 O.
32265090.