Those who want to destroy the Four Lower Snake River dams present a grab bag of arguments when making their case.

One argument, offered by the authors of a web page called DamSense, is that California is taking advantage of us by paying for “our energy at ½ the rate we are paying.” This is wrong on the facts, lacks an understanding of electricity markets, and is reflective of a strange, tribal mindset.

First, it is ironic for people from Seattle to lecture people in Eastern Washington about selling energy to outsiders in California. From an Eastern Washington perspective, there is little to distinguish between California and Seattle. But, refusing to sell to Seattle or California or anyone because they are outsiders is a weird tribal mentality.

Second, the implication is that Washington utility districts, like Benton/Franklin, that pay for electricity from the dams are being taken advantage of.  But they don’t think so, and they are among the biggest supporters of the dams. Activists refuse to listen to – and even attack – the very utilities they claim they want to help.

Third, the claim that energy from the four Lower Snake River dams is surplus is incorrect. California’s need for energy rises at different times of the year than it does for Washington state utilities. So, energy flows from Washington to California (from dams and other generating sources) when they have high electricity demand, and back north when they don’t. Trade in energy works both ways.

Fourth, speaking of trade, ten percent of U.S. wheat travels down the Snake River, but very little of that is consumed in Washington state. Should we claim that is unfair since others are getting “our” wheat? To say that is as much nonsense as saying Californians get “our” electricity.

Fifth, the claim that others – like those rotten Californians - get energy from Washington state cheaply is wrong.  The only way this is true is if you look only at the spot market, and only at those moments when spot prices are low. Prices go up and down. To cite out-of-state sales only when prices are low is cherry picking.

Sixth, much of the hydro power is contracted for, not sold on the open market. There is significant competition to buy it because it is cheap. So, while there is hydro energy available at some times, at other times there is none, and utilities must turn to more expensive sources of energy.  Utilities with contracts, however, still have access to low-cost hydro.  This is what people who complain about the cost of hydro energy on the spot market do not understand.  Utilities that have planned ahead and can access hydro pay lower costs, while others are paying much more on the spot market.

To put this another way, think about the normal cost of bottled water. Now, what is the cost of bottled water just before a hurricane arrives and store shelves are empty? The people at DamSense think the answer is “free,” because you pay nothing for what you can’t buy.  The real answer is “extremely expensive,” because the lack of access has a high cost. This is opportunity cost. Utilities with contracts for hydro don’t pay those opportunity costs. If we destroyed the dams, the opportunity cost of lost clean power generation would be paid by more Wshington residents.

This is basic market economics, but advocates of destroying the dams ignore these costs to create a phony accounting ledger.

Seventh, even advocates of destroying the dams admit utilities would have to pay more if the dams were destroyed.  The NW Energy Coalition admits costs would go up because the energy is not “surplus” and would have to be replaced by other, more costly, sources.

Eighth, their solution to the purported unfairness of what California pays is to make Washington residents pay more!  This is cutting off our nose to spite our face.  And for what?  To stick it to people in California? People complain that Trump’s trade policy hurts Americans, but this is the Trump mindset on steroids.

Ninth, even if we destroyed the dams, we would still send energy to California.  Should we keep destroying clean electricity generation – wind turbines included – until those yoga-posing Californians get no energy from us?  If those pushing for dam destruction are truly concerned about sending energy to California (which they aren’t), their supposed “solution” wouldn’t actually work.

Finally, tenth. The final bit of evidence that dam removal advocates don’t really care about electricity costs and distribution is that they can complain both ways.  On the one hand, they can complain when there is a high amount of snowpack, which creates more energy because it is “surplus” that is sold at low cost.  If there isn’t snowpack, however, the amount of energy produced by the dams is lower and they argue that the total amount of energy produced is small.  It is a game.

This argument about electricity rates is uninformed, hypocritical, and plays on unseemly, tribal jealousies of outsiders.  It is grasping at straws, shows ideological bias, and doesn’t reflect reality.