PacifiCorp has rebutted the CEC’s case for the economic benefits of dam removal as ‘flawed’, in particular citing weaknesses in the financial model due to assumptions on future energy costs.
The company’s move to dispute the agency’s argument is based on an analysis of the dam removal case undertaken by Christensen Associates Energy Consulting, The report claims that there are errors in the inputs, methodology and key assumptions in the agency’s financial model.
In a statement, PacifiCorp said the consultant’s report concluded the errors in the agency’s financial model results in bias towards decommissioning. PacifiCorp added that the consultant’s analysis says CEC did not include an assessment of the cost of sediment removal behind the dams, and there were also errors and inconsistencies in addressing the need for replacement power capacity.
The best economic case in the long-term for PacifiCorp’s customers is to have the Klamath dams relicenced and fishways built, according to the consultant’s study. Removing dams on the Klamath would be unprecedented in North America, it added.
The CEC report from December last year was made part of the documents submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the relicencing process. That same month PacifiCorp also submitted a revised licensing proposal to address federal agencies’ concerns, and the company proposed about US$300M of investment in fishways.
