Tag Archives: PUC

Hawaii Island Energy Cooperative

Last Chance to Tell PUC You Support Hawaii Island Energy Co-op

Last reminder! The final Big Island PUC meeting is tonight. It’s at 6 p.m. at the Kealakehe High School cafeteria. Please come and support the Hawai‘i Island Energy Cooperative.

At least 250 people showed up at last night’s meeting, and the Hilo High School cafeteria was packed. It ran about two hours, and the people speaking opposed the NextEra/HEI merger by 10 to one. A great many who spoke against the merger also spoke in favor of the Hawai‘i Island Energy Co-op.

The PUC called these public listening sessions in order to hear from the public before starting its formal hearings in November. That’s when it will determine whether the sale of Hawaiian Electric to NextEra is in the best interests of Hawai‘i and the state’s energy future.

If you are on the west side of the island, please come to tonight’s Kealakehe meeting.

Hawaii Island Energy Cooperative

Own the Power: 9/29 in Hilo, 9/30 in Kona

Only 2 more days until the first PUC public listening meeting at Hilo High School, and 3 more days until the meeting at Kealakehe High. The PUC wants to know what the public thinks about the proposed NextEra/HEI merger before holding its formal hearings in late November.

Read about it here, but most importantly, please show up at one of the meetings. This is probably the last chance in our lifetime to change our public utility and impact our future generations so positively.Richard Ha Hamakua Springs

 

Current Affairs, Hawaii Island Energy Cooperative

Community Listening Sessions: The PUC Wants To Hear

8 Comments

This is probably the last chance in this generation to have a say in how our electric utility is run.

The PUC is going to travel around the state in September holding “community listening sessions.” They want to know what we think about the HEI/NextEra merger application.

Here on the Big Island, we want to ask the PUC to consider a co-op model, similar to the Kauai Island Energy Cooperative.

The reason I say it’s probably our only opportunity is because you have to have a willing seller to put such a plan into place, and in the absense of something earth-shattering, this probably won’t come up again in our lifetime. It’s speak up now, or miss our chance.

It’s definitely in our best interest to show up at these PUC meetings and ask them to consider our co-op model: the Hawaii Island Energy Cooperative. Otherwise we miss our chance to make a change for the better.

If you are not clear on what a co-op model would look like, it’s really very simple: We’re only suggesting a change in the business model of how the electric utility operates, and that means three essential differences from how things operate now.

Some people will say we don’t have enough qualified people. Well, let’s say we didn’t change any of the employees running Hawaiian Electric, but only changed the business model. There goes that argument. There is no argument.

Essentially, there would just be three differences.

1)    The co-op would be an investor-owned, non-profit utility that does not pay taxes, and the money we save would go straight back to the people.

2)    The co-op would be a non-profit model that existed to do what the people want. People would elect the board of directors, and if people were not happy with the board of directors, they could fire them by not electing them again.

3)    People always wonder if the co-op would have enough money. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, or NRECA, which is made up of 900 co-ops in the United States, owns its own finance company; its own bank. Its whole objective is to manage co-ops. That’s why they are called co-ops—they cooperate with each other. They have plenty of money.

It’s not any more complicated than that. The big question here is which business model will work best for the people in terms of managing our utility. This is not rocket science.

It’s important that we show up and speak up when the PUC asks us to. Attend the meetings next month — I’ll post when and where they are — and ask the PUC to consider the co-op. Ask them to consider what’s really best for the people of the Big Island.

Geothermal

Testimony To PUC Supporting 50MW of Geothermal for Big Island

1 Comment

Richard Ha writes:

This is testimony that the Big Island Community Coalition (BICC) steering committee sent to the Hawaii PUC earlier this month. It is in support of the implementation of 50MW of geothermal energy for Hawai‘i island.

The BICC steering committee is made up of the following, all acting on their own behalf: David DeLuz, Jr., Rockne Freitas, Michelle Galimba, Richard Ha, Wallace Ishibashi, Kuulei Kealoha Cooper, Kai’u Kimura, D. Noelani Kalipi, Robert Lindsey, HM Monty Richards, Marcia Sakai, Kumu Lehua Veincent, and William Walter.

Our testimony:

To: Chair Hermina Morita

Commissioner Michael Champley

Commissioner Lorraine Akiba

Hawaii Public Utilities Commission

Email: Hawaii.puc@hawaii.gov

Re: Comments to PUC Docket: 2014-0183 (HECO/HELCO/MECO – PSIP: HELCO Power Supply Improvement Plan and PUC Docket: 2012-0092 (Geothermal 50 MW RFP for Hawaii Island)

Aloha PUC Commissioners,

The Big Island Community Coalition supports implementing 50MW of geothermal as soon as practicable. The high oil price case projected by the EIA 2014, predicts $150 per barrel oil by 2020. There is a direct correlation between oil usage and world GDP. A high oil price of $150 per barrel will adversely impact our tourism industry causing a severe recession.

Geothermal is one of the few ways available to mitigate high oil price. And, we need to move sooner rather than later.

Oil prices quadrupled in the last ten years and the folks who could pass on the costs did pass on the costs. Those who could not were the working homeless, kupuna on fixed income, single moms as well as others such as farmers who are price takers and not price makers. 

The Big Island has the lowest median income of the counties. Our electricity rates have been 25% higher than Oahu’s for as long as we can remember. That high electricity rate acts like a giant regressive tax. We are able to turn that around by enabling more geothermal.

The 23% curtailed electricity from geothermal can support making hydrogen at an affordable cost. This will help solve the green ground transportation problem. And, curtailed electricity can be the basis for making nitrogen fertilizer, without which we cannot feed all the people.

Mahalo, Commissioners.

Richard Ha

President, Big Island Community Coalition

Chart

Lowering Electric Rates, Peak Oil, Renewable Energy Sources

Learning From Germany & Others’ Energy Plans: No Free Lunch

Richard Ha writes:

Germany attempted to transition to a green electricity generation more than ten years ago. Today, some of its electricity rates are the highest in Europe, and it is using coal for 45 percent of its electricity. The lesson here is that there really isn’t any “free lunch.”

From Bloomberg.com today:

Merkel’s Taste for Coal to Upset $130 Billion Green Drive

By Julia Mengewein – Sep 22, 2014

When Germany kicked off its journey toward a system harnessing energy from wind and sun back in 2000, the goal was to protect the environment and build out climate-friendly power generation.

More than a decade later, Europe’s biggest economy is on course to miss its 2020 climate targets and greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants are virtually unchanged. Germany used coal, the dirtiest fuel, to generate 45 percent of its power last year, its highest level since 2007, as Chancellor Angela Merkel is phasing out nuclear in the wake of the Fukushima atomic accident in Japan three years ago.

The transition, dubbed the Energiewende, has so far added more than 100 billion euros ($134 billion) to the power bills of households, shop owners and small factories as renewable energy met a record 25 percent of demand last year. RWE AG (RWE), the nation’s biggest power producer, last year reported its first loss since 1949 as utility margins are getting squeezed because laws give green power priority to the grids….  Read the rest

How is HECO going to both lower our electricity rates and increase intermittent power into the grid? Seems we are going to bet everything on natural gas. At $4/thousand cubic feet (mcf), it is very cheap. In Asia and Europe, it’s more than $11/mcf.

What happens when its price rises in 10 and 20 years? Where will we be then? Will we have a competitive advantage to the rest of the world? Or will we be struggling, like Germany is today?

Where will we be 10 and 20 years from now? We should be paying attention to what people like Marco Mangelsdorf, president of ProVision Solar, and others are saying about the PUC’s request for an energy action plan for the state of Hawai‘i.

HECO’s Response to the PUC’s Orders: Is the Media Right? With Marco Mangelsdorf

Bike, Lowering Electric Rates, Renewable Energy Sources, Sustainability

Bad: Change Just for the Sake of Change

Richard Ha writes:

Things are moving fast in terms of energy, and nobody knows, right now, where we are heading. Where we end up will not only shape our own futures, but it will also determine how easy or hard our children’s and grandchildren’s lives are.

The PUC just told HECO that the utility had better change what it’s doing, and HECO responded that it will. But there are lots of moving parts to this situation, and none of us know where things are going. 

Change merely for the sake of change is not wise, and it’s worrisome. We need to conscientiously adapt to conditions with careful consideration and purpose. We must have a smart vision, and work toward that vision.

Henry Curtis wrote that Energy Futurists Need Open Minds:

“…stakeholders and regulators need open dialogue on a variety of future scenarios.

And yet, although there are at least four different ways the future can unfold, many are gambling their careers by assuming that the Smart Grid scenario is the future and therefore all other scenarios can be ignored.

Later this month the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) would hold public meetings to discuss their Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

The feds want to use the 1300-page document to develop guidance on how the DOE can fund the Smart Grid future.  They too have ignored the alternatives at their own peril….”

Being “first in the world” at something is a risky proposition. It’s far better to copy the first in the world. Folks who attempt to be first in the world frequently fail, and the question here is, who is going to pay if we try something and we fail?

From my perspective, it seems clear that we want a future that leaves no one behind and makes us competitive with the rest of the world.

Take mountain bikes, for example. Nowadays they have shock absorbers, multiple gears, lightweight material and instrumentation that aids the rider. The tool kit is very light and efficient. But the heart of the system, the wheels, are still round.

Say we want to improve a bicycle to win a race. Do we make a unicycle? A bicycle with every innovation but only one wheel? 

We need to be clear about what we want. It’s better to carefully consider the heart of the bike, which is its rider and energy source. Do we want the leanest, meanest bicycle rider – i.e., the best and cheapest energy source? Or a one-wheeled bicycle? Do we want a bicycle with fenders, flaps, mirrors, titanium saddlebags and just an average or slow rider?

Mina Morita, Chair of the PUC, likened the electric grid to an ‘auwai. It’s the irrigation system that keeps a lo‘i alive.

Certainly what we are looking for as we reshape our energy future is a combination of things. We need to make careful choices that make good sense in the long run. We can’t change merely for change’s sake. It’s going to be a long race, and we want to come out ahead.

Lowering Electric Rates, Peak Oil, Renewable Energy Sources, Sustainability

Response to Jack Roney’s Response

1 Comment

Richard Ha writes:

Jack Roney wrote an insightful and very well thought-out response to my BICC editorial Cheap Power for Hawaii Island, which ran in the Hawaii Tribune-Herald on April 13th.

We agree with Jack’s point, actually, that reliability should be the first priority of the electric utility. We just come at it in a slightly different way.

The Big Island Community Coalition (BICC) requires that renewable energy options be the best combination of the sustainability’s “triple bottom line:” They must be socially sustainable, environmentally sustainable and economically sustainable.

Presently, what does the best job of meeting the sustainability triple bottom line is the electrical grid. Specifically, it’s the most democratic way to deliver services that we have right now, and therefore it meets the socially sustainable requirement. (This doesn’t preclude something being developed in the future that better serves the sustainability triple bottom line.)

But more Hawaiians live outside of Hawai‘i now than in it, and rising electricity costs are going to cause more and more Hawaiians to leave the state and seek jobs so they are able to support their families. A condition that causes people of the host culture to leave their ancestral lands in greater and greater numbers is not sustainable.

In order for a renewable resource to replace a fossil fuel one, it must perform better on the triple bottom line assessment. It’s not only about the color of the oil – it’s about the cost, and the environmental and social impact of the alternative.

Solar is problematic, as Jack points out, from the standpoint of reliability. And folks who cannot leave the grid will find themselves increasingly paying more for the grid that those who can afford to leave will have left behind. That is not socially sustainable.

Geothermal electricity is by far the lowest cost and it’s available 24/7. It provides the same characteristics as oil but is environmentally friendly, and because of its low cost it’s more socially sustainable than oil. Fewer Hawaiians (and others) will have to leave Hawai‘i. And geothermal’s low stable cost, relative to petroleum oil, will make the Big Island relatively more competitive to the rest of the world regarding electricity. Geothermal satisfies the triple sustainability bottom line.

The PUC gave HELCO a 120-day deadline to explain how their recent 50MW request for geothermal proposals will result in lower costs to the ratepayer, and that deadline is up in a few days. HELCO will need to show a plan that retires oil-fired plants.

The BICC appreciates that the PUC, under Mina Morita’s leadership, has taken a view that ratepayer cost is a top priority. But this is not just a feel-good approach. The triple sustainability bottom line approach is a long term, pono, approach that does the right thing for us as well as future generations. It sets us up to be more competitive to the rest of the world.

Aloha, Jack Roney, for your well thought-out letter to the editor!

Biofuel, Renewable Energy Sources

Good News: PUC Says No To AKP Biofuels

7 Comments

Richard Ha writes:

Happy holidays, everyone!

We received good news on Monday: The PUC rejected the ‘Aina Koa Pono biofuel project.

From Civil Beat:

The Public Utilities Commission has rejected a proposal to build a biofuels facility in Kau on the Big Island. 

The developer, Aina Koa Pono, hoped to use plant feedstocks to produce drop-in biofuel for the electric utilities on the Big Island, Maui and Oahu. But the PUC said that the fuel would be too expensive, in a decision issued on Monday.

“The contract price for the AKP-produced biofuel is excessive and not cost-effective at present and for the foreseeable future, and thus, is unreasonable and inconsistent with the public interest,” commissioners wrote…. Read the rest

It goes to show that “we, the people” can make a difference.

In this case, a grassroots group of folks came together spontaneously to advocate for low-cost electricity on behalf of the rubbah slippah folks on the Big Island. We called ourselves the Big Island Community Coalition (BICC).

We supported other community members by submitting written testimony, and helped organize public participation at two PUC hearings on the Big Island. Here’s a post about it from last year.

The people involved in the BICC were Dave DeLuz, Jr., John Dill, Rockne Freitas, Michelle Galimba, Richard Ha, Wallace Ishibashi, Kuulei Kealoha Cooper, Robert Lindsey, H.M. Monty Richards, Marcia Sakai, Kumu Lehua Veincent and William Walter.

Helping the rubbah slippah folks helps all of us.

Government, Lowering Electric Rates

HECO Withdraws Rate Increase Request & More

4 Comments

Richard Ha writes:

Governor Neil Abercrombie issued a press release yesterday, announcing that Hawaiian Electric Company is withdrawing its rate increase request for the Big Island:

State Reaches Settlement with Hawaiian Electric Company

HONOLULU –As island families and businesses continue to face high energy prices, Gov. Neil Abercrombie today announced a settlement between the State of Hawaii and the Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. (HECO) that will result in the withdrawal of a rate increase request for Hawaii Island and a significant reduction in taxpayer dollars requested to cover project costs.

Subject to approval by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), the formal settlement filed with the PUC on Jan. 28 outlines an agreement between the state Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’ Division of Consumer Advocacy (DCA) and HECO, including its subsidiaries, Maui Electric Co., Ltd. (MECO) and Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc. (HELCO), which serve Maui County and Hawaii Island, respectively.

“With high oil prices driving up electricity and other costs throughout our economy, we have to take action to help Hawaii’s families and businesses who are struggling to make ends meet,” Gov. Neil Abercrombie said. “While this settlement will help in the short-term, we remain committed to pursuing long-term solutions toward clean energy alternatives.”

 As part of the settlement, HELCO will withdraw its request for a 4.2 percent or $19.8 million rate increase in 2013.

HECO and its subsidiaries will also reduce by $40 million the amount being sought for improvements to two major projects –the 110-megawatt biofuel generating station at Campbell Industrial Park and a new customer information system. 

In addition, HECO will also delay filing a 2014 rate case that was originally scheduled to be filed this year under the current regulatory framework for reviewing its rates 

DCA Executive Director Jeffrey Ono said: “This settlement will benefit consumers and help reduce the ever-increasing cost of electricity.”

Around five months ago, the steering committee of the Big Island Community Coalition formed, in order to advocate for Big Island rate payers to have the lowest electricity rates in the state.

It submitted this Op Ed to Hawai‘i’s newspaper.

HELCO & YOUR BILL: WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

By Noelani Kalipi 

Hawaii Electric Light Co. is applying to raise Big Island electricity rates by 4.2 percent — shortly after its parent company announced impressive profits that were 70 percent higher than last year.

What’s wrong with this picture?

…The proposed HELCO rate increase, coming at a time of record profits, does not sit right with us.

We understand the regulatory system, which is rate-based. Our concern is that we continue to see requests for rate increases at the same time that we read about record profits for the utility.

While we understand the fiduciary duty to maximize profits for the shareholders, we believe the utility’s responsibility to the rate payer is just as important. As part of good corporate business, it should benefit both by investing its profits into a sustainable grid.

The Big Island is one of the few places on the planet where we have robust, renewable energy resources that can be harnessed effectively to provide firm, reliable, low cost electricity for our residents.

One example is geothermal, which costs about half the price of oil. We also have solar, wind and hydroelectric. We have resources right here that can both lower our electricity costs and get us off of imported oils.

Lower rates would mean that when the grid needs repairs, or the cost of oil goes up again, it will not be such a punch-in-the-gut to our electric bills.

If HELCO is allowed to raise its rates by the requested 4.2 percent, plus raise rates again via the Aina Koa Pono project, and then the oil price goes up, that would be a triple whammy price hike on your electric bill…. 

Read the rest here

The steering committee is: Dave De Luz Jr., John E K Dill, Rockne Freitas, Michelle Galimba, Richard Ha, Wallace Ishibashi, Ku‘ulei Kealoha Cooper, D. Noelani Kalipi, Ka‘iu Kimura, Robert Lindsey, H M (Monty) Richards, Marcia Sakai, Kumu Lehua Veincent and William Walter.

Prior to that article, people expected that rising electricity rates were inevitable, and that they could do nothing about it. But the steering committee encouraged people to attend PUC hearings and write letters, and it has made a huge difference.

The Consumer Advocate noticed and told the Hawaii Tribune-Herald that the PUC meetings had some of the largest turnouts that he has seen. He said that if an equivalent number of letters came from O‘ahu, it would take two days just to read them all.

When people attended PUC hearings and wrote letters protesting the rate hikes, the thinking started to change.

Someone who has been reading about our efforts commented that they made him think of these words of Gandhi’s, which are pretty profound.

When we wrote that letter, this change was just a thought. Our thoughts became our actions. And our actions became our habits. Soon, our habits will become our values and our values will become our destiny.

It’s already started.

Biofuel, Government

NY Times: Fed Court Says Biofuels Quota Based on “Wishful Thinking”

Richard Ha writes:

Friday’s New York Times article Court Overturns E.P.A.’s Biofuels Mandate is very interesting.

Even more reason for the PUC to set aside the Big Island’s Aina Koa Pono biofuels project!

From the New York Times:

Published: January 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court threw out a federal rule on renewable fuels on Friday, saying that a quota set by the Environmental Protection Agency for incorporating liquids made from woody crops and wastes into car and truck fuels was based on wishful thinking rather than realistic estimates of what could be achieved.

But actual production has been near zero.

While the mandate springs from a 2007 act of Congress meant to promote advanced biofuels to run cars and trucks, “we are not convinced that Congress meant for E.P.A. to let that intent color its work as a predictor, to
let the wish be father to the thought,” the court wrote….

Read the rest