I reject BPA's entire argument. The choices presented by BPA are false. We do not have to choose between protecting salmon and rolling blackouts.

This summer there will be plenty of power. But there may not be enough BPA generated power. If so, BPA would then have to buy power on the spot market (which is unbelievably high right now) to fulfill their power sales contracts. These costs would then be passed onto the ratepayers. The resulting "rate shock" is the real reason for BPA's position. In other words, they're saying "We would rather sacrafice Columbia River salmon than pay for power on the spot market which might upset our customers".

Does this sound like a responsible position from an agency trying to protect salmon? I'll let you be the judge. I think it's patently ridiculous. That water is for the fish. Period. If you need more power, fine. Buy it on the spot market, pass the high costs onto the ratepayers, and deal with the fallout. The first thing ratepayers will do is reduce the amount of energy they use. Not a bad idea.

By using water that was reserved for salmon, BPA is (once again) subsidizing low power rates on the backs of the salmon. And ratepayers will have no incentive to conserve energy. We can all complain about the tribes netting lots of fish but where is the outcry when a public agency makes decisions like this? This decision may result in more salmon mortality in the Columbia River than all the tribal netting over the past 10 years combined. And don't think for a minute the tribes don't know that.....

Sorry for the ranting and raving but this issue hits close to home.


------------------
MSB