In the long run, for the intersection of politics and policy in climate change, the defining problem will likely be balancing energy needs with climate change mitigation needs. In the short term this is already happening in the Pacific Northwest, with endangered salmon standing in for climate change. I’ve introduced the problem in these posts (link, link, link and link).

The crux of the issue is continuing to return cheap power on a major investment in hydroelectric infrastructure, while protecting and restoring endangered salmon – species that have been severely impacted by building that hydroelectric infrastructure. Both facets of this intersection have broad impacts on the regional economy, with jobs-intensive industries reliant on cheap power (e.g.: story) and a burgeoning fishing industry (sport and food) reliant on healthy fish stocks. But lurking just beyond the competing economics, which smells like the fight between farmers and the gold mining industry in late 19th century California, is the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its disregard for the economics of species protection. Illustrative of just one aspect of this convoluted game, the complication of managing the power system under the influence of protecting endangered species is summed up well in this article.

For reasons I covered here, the politics of salmon and power generation in the Pacific Northwest is not easily defined along party lines (also see this letter for more evidence of bipartisan politics in the issue). That may be changing. I wrote that Senator Craig was the first Pacific Northwest Senator to become directly involved (beyond just speeches and letters, in other words) in the fight over science and policy for endangered salmon, trying to kill the federally-funded Fish Passage Center (FPC) that consolidates and analyses fish survival data.

Craig at first never hid that his move to kill the FPC was in direct response to Judge Redden’s ruling that BPA and the Army Corps must do more to protect salmon. But after he was hammered by the editorial shop of almost every media outlet in the region, a broad and diffuse response that seems to make clear that the priorities of Idaho citizens tip toward the fish side of this dispute, Craig’s justification for moving to eliminate the FPC has become defensive.

The Idaho Statesman published a Craig op/ed on his move to kill the FPC, in which he claimed that it’s simply a tax-saving move: “The FPC meets the exact description of a redundant federal program.” The claims made in Craig’s letter are strenuously disputed both by Washington State’s Department of Fish and Wildlife and by salmon interest groups.

In response, regional House Democrats are asking their Approps chair and ranking member to oppose Craig’s language and save the FPC (see this Seattle P-I story:

” ‘With so much uncertainty surrounding salmon recovery presently and in the future, now is simply not the time to curtail agency access to the best available science,’ says a July 20 letter to the Republican chairman and the ranking Democratic member of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. The letter, circulated by Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., also was signed by Democrats Jim McDermott, Jay Inslee, Brian Baird and Rick Larsen of Washington and Earl Blumenauer, David Wu and Darlene Hooley of Oregon. ”

It is unclear yet whether the summer spill issue will further break down along party lines; as yet no Pacific Northwest Senators or Representatives have publicly supported Craig’s maneuver. Both parties walk a fine line, with the rise in political clout of conservation groups with conservative sympathies (e.g.) and the necessary political goal of keeping power prices low.

Perhaps the most fascinating indication of the convoluted politics on the issue can be seen in trying to find political letters written by Governors, Representatives and Senators. While all of these representatives proudly post letters and press releases to their websites on almost every issue they are involved in, trying to find their signed letters to agency heads, committee chairs and other policy players on summer spill is near impossible.