Algae
HR Biopetroleum acquired the National algae banks housed at UH. I thought the 100s of algae strains constituted a public trust holding dating from the 1970s. But there again, HR Biopetroleum is a public-private, UH-affiliate, for profit biotechnology company. At one time, the University focused more on educating students.
Biofuels
Life of the Land filed supplemental testimony today in the PUC contested case proceeding re the HECO-Imperium Biofuels Supply Contract. We now have 16 witnesses. The four new ones are
LOL Witnesses
Paul "Doc" Berry, teacher, educator, videographer, writer, editor.
Charles Pe'ape'a Makawalu Burrows, President of Ahahui Malama i ka Lokahi, Kaho'olawe Island Reserve Commission, the OHA Native Hawaiian Historic Preservation Council, the United Church of Christ Environmental and Energy Task Force, the U.S. National Ramsar Wetlands Council
Dr. Joshua Cooper, peace and justice advocate who wrote his testimony while in Malaysia
Charmaine Crockett, Research analyst at Goldman Sachs for nine years. As a graduate student in anthropology, received a fellowship at the United Nations. NGO representative to the United Nations for Economists Allied Against Arms Reductions, and the Peoples Movement for Human Rights Learning. Vice chair of two UN conferences and served for four years on the United Nations Committee. Worked as a human rights worker for several UN affiliates as well as given several UN level workshops, as a human rights lobbyist for RIO plus 10. Assisted in capacity building in war torn countries
Henry Curtis, Videographer, Filmer, Editor, Blogger. Represented Life of the Land in 16 contested case regulatory proceedings re electric utilities .
Stephanie Fried, Ph.D. Senior Scientist. Environmental Defense Fund. Ph.D., Fluent Bahasa Indonesian, French. Two Fulbright schloraships.
Kelly King, Vice President of Pacific Biodiesel, America's first and most sustainable biodiesel company. Founding board member of the Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance (2006)
Robert King, President of Pacific Biodiesel, Environmental Council
Dick Mayer, Maui Community College Professor Emeritus (geography and economics)
Vice-Chair of the Maui General Plan Advisory Committee. Maui Tomorrow Foundation
Lorrin Pang, MD, MPH, America's Best Doctors List 2006-08. Consultant to World Health Organization. Consultant to Glaxo Smith Kline
Robert Westbury Parsons, Reporter, Maui Time Weekly, Maui County Environmental Coordinator, as an Executive Assistant to Mayor Alan Arakawa.
Dr. Tad Patzek, Chair of the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department, University of Texas at Austin, former UC Berkeley Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Dr. David Rezachek, P.E. all-around energy expert. Three decades of experience in energy and environmental systems research, design, demonstration, analysis and engineering and project management.
Dr. William Wallace Moekahi Steiner, Dean, University of Hawaii-Hilo, College of Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resource Management
Miwa Tamanaha, Executive Director, Kahea: The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance, Economist, Videographer, Author, Language: English (first language), Spanish (one semester study abroad experience in Mexico), German (four years of high school study, AP Scholar), Japanese (two semesters college study, six years of Japanese school), Chinese (summer semester study abroad experience in Beijing), Swahili (6-month work experience in Tanzania)
Mililani Trask, Native Hawaiian attorney and international activist.
Change at Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO)
Number 1: T. Michael May. Last day as CEO: July 31, 2008
Number 2: Eric Yeaman. Went to Hawaii Telcom in April.
The rumor: The company is being run by Connie Lau and Robbie Alm, pending new leadership.
Exporting Governmental Representatives
The Governor, with Commissioners and staff from the Utility Commission Commissioners, the Consumer Advocate (DCCA), Representative Mina Morita, Senator Ron Menor, and Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) met with the U.S. Department of Energy in Colorado to previewed new electric cars and trucks and to participate in regulatory training workshop led by national experts on utility regulation. This training sessions were designed to equip Hawaii regulators with the tools and options to develop the regulatory framework needed to enable the state to achieve its renewable energy goals.
Their idea: overhaul (streamline) the regulatory process and justifying it by saying that it will enable future renewable energy projects to multiply.
The problem: These renewable energy projects have been here for decades, and it is resistance at every level of government and at HECO that have prevented their deployment. Destroying public participation and public input will not lead to their deployment.
The solution: Have the Legislature, the Governor, the PUC and/or HECO to immediately create opportunity for Renewables:
(1) Currently anyone who produces renewable energy can export that energy to the grid (Net Metering) but there is a severe utility-imposed cap limiting its effectiveness. Also, at the end of the year, a ratepayer's balance is netted out and any excess energy transferred to the utility is given for free, while the utility charges the ratepayer a monthly bill (around $20/month) for the privilege of being connected to the grid.
This should be changed. Any ratepayer should be able to Net Meter up to 25kW system to the grid. Any surplus energy at the end of the year should be converted to an Ratepayer Power Purchase Agreement (RPPA) whereby the utility compensates the ratepayer at one of two levels: at the higher retail rates for ratepayers who transfer energy at peak periods (5-9 pm weekdays) and non-peak periods; and at the lower wholesale rates for ratepayers who only transfer energy at non-peak periods.
(2) Utilities should offer discounted rates to any customer who is willing to forgo utility power during peak hours (5-9 pm weekdays).
(3) The utility should sell off its power plants and operate only as a wires company. Thus they would not have any incentive to pick coal- or oil-based electricity over renewable electricity.
(4) Utilities should stop the practice of ''loaning'' employees to pose as Legislative aides, and the Legislature should ban the practice. All gifts made by the utility to Legislators should be reported in real-time on-line reports that are easily accessible to the public.
(5) Failing these simple actions, the counties should consider acquiring the utilities and converting them to member-owned cooperatives similar to Kauai Island Utility Co-op.
New round of layoffs hits Imperium:
Corporate staff reduced at the Seattle biodiesel refiner
John Cook, Seattle Post-Intelligencer (July 30, 2008)
What a difference a year makes.
At this time last year, Imperium Renewables was riding the clean tech boom with one of the largest venture financing deals in the history of the state and a $345 million initial public offering filing on record with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Politicians, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., regularly showed up at Imperium to tout the company's leadership in the biodiesel field.
Now, word comes that the Seattle biodiesel refiner has laid off a chunk of its corporate staff. The cuts hit last week. A source told the Seattle P-I that only a handful of staffers are left at the corporate office. The massive Grays Harbor County plant, one of the largest biodiesel facilities in the country, continues to operate, according to the source.
But Imperium appears to be a shell of its former self.
Through a spokesman, Imperium Chief Executive John Plaza confirmed the layoffs. But he declined to be interviewed or discuss how many people were let go in the latest shake-up.
Imperium's fall from grace has been rapid over the past few months, starting publicly in December with the unexpected resignation of CEO Martin Tobias. That was followed by layoffs and the cancellation of the IPO. Then in May, a former employee at Imperium sued the company over compensation issues. Meanwhile, just this week, a Honolulu TV station reported that Imperium does not plan to go forward with its biodiesel plant in Hawaii, instead shipping the fuel from its plant in Washington state. That's caused protests from an environmental group.
Further complicating matters for Imperium are the global issues about biodiesel, with debates about food versus fuel and the environmental challenges of biodiesel production.
As of last August, Imperium employed 107 people. But that number has been reduced by multiple layoffs and attrition.
Imperium Renewables, Hawai`i
The Honolulu office appears to have closed their doors
Lanai's owners plan to power up on renewable energy
Chad Blair, Pacific Business News (June 20, 2008)
Hawaii's sixth-largest island hopes to be the first to use 100 percent renewable energy to power homes and businesses. ... Castle & Cooke threw its considerable weight behind two key measures: House Bill 2502, which permits the use of solar facilities on certain classifications of ag land; and HB 2863, which fast-tracks the state and county permitting process for development and operation of renewable energy facilities that generate at least 200 megawatts of electricity. ...
Not everyone on Lanai is embracing the movement. Several people, including Lanai residents, testified against HB 2863, arguing that community input would be nullified under a fast-track permitting process.
"We fully support efforts to increase renewable energy use in Hawaii," said Henry Curtis, executive director of the Oahu environmental group Life of the Land. "But the one concern we have is that Castle & Cooke has gone out of its way in the last few months to seek to eliminate all public input on their process. It is of the utmost importance for the people of Lanai to have a say." ...
Saunders is aware of the concerns and said Castle & Cooke is working to address them, whether it's placating residents so they continue to have access to hunting grounds, or maintaining a flat rate on electric bills.
Fuel deal for new HECO plant challenged
Nanea Kalani, Pacific Business News (July 25, 2008)
Hawaiian Electric Co. is a year away from switching on a new power plant that will run exclusively on clean-burning biofuel, but getting the fuel delivered is turning into a challenge that may cost utility customers more than expected. ...
Peter Rosegg ... "It is impossible to predict what actual fuel prices will be, but we believe that in the long term, biodiesel costs could be more stable and lower than the cost of oil products, especially as carbon taxes and fees are added in coming years."
Unilever (Source: Greenpeace, May 1 2008)
Unilever boss, Patrick Cescau performed a swift about turn today and announced that his company is supporting our call for a moratorium – a complete halt – on rainforest destruction in Indonesia. A moratorium would buy time, and allow proper regulations to be put in place that protect the rainforest in years to come. Unilever’s announcement is potentially good news for orang-utans and for the climate. Speaking at the May Day Climate Change Summit attended by Prince Charles and the UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, he also promised that all of Unilever’s palm oil would be sustainably sourced by 2015. .. ...
Rampant expansion of palm oil plantations is the leading cause of rainforest destruction in Indonesia. Unilever, as the world’s biggest consumer of palm oil, is driving this expansion and as a result is fuelling rainforest destruction. For every 20 litres of palm oil produced in Indonesia, one litre ends up in Unilever’s hands. The main problem is that Unilever continues to buy palm oil from dodgy suppliers who burn rainforest and drain peatlands that are protected under Indonesian law to clear space for more plantations. Having lost their homes, orang-utans are forced to look elsewhere for food and often palm plantations are the nearest source.
It’s estimated that over 1600 orang-utans were killed on palm oil plantations in 2006 alone.
www.greenpeace.org/international/news/unilever-palm-oil080501
Friday, August 1, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Biofuel Criminals
Christian Science Monitor (June 8, 2008)
Called "splash and dash," "touch and go," or an unfair trade practice, it features biofuels traders who exploit a US tax credit, European drivers who get cheaper diesel fuel, and American taxpayers, who are footing the bill. ...
Created under the 2004 American Jobs Act, the "blenders tax credit" was supposed to boost US production of biodiesel by encouraging US diesel marketers to blend regular petroleum diesel with fuel made from soybeans or other agricultural products. ...
The maneuver begins with a shipload of biodiesel from, say, Malaysia, which pulls into a US port ...
Then, the vessel receives from a dockside diesel supplier a "splash" of US petroleum diesel. ...
If the ship holds roughly 9 million gallons, it takes only about 9,000 gallons of traditional diesel (0.1 percent of the total) to make the entire load eligible for the blenders tax credit. The US importer of the load applies to the Internal Revenue Service for the credit – a dollar for each of the 9 million biodiesel gallons ...
The next day the tanker can set sail – dash – for Europe. ...
European biodiesel producers themselves are shipping fuel to US ports to get the US blenders credit and then bringing it back to Europe for sale, according to British press accounts.
www.csmonitor.com/2007/0608/p02s01-usec.htm
Wall Street Journal (April 1, 2008)
How big a mess is America’s biofuel policy? ...
The U.S. taxpayer forks over a $1 subsidy for every gallon of biodiesel that is blended in the U.S. for export later. The idea was to give a nudge to the U.S. biofuel industry. But it is boomeranging, as the Guardian reports today in the latest installment on biodiesel “splash-and-dash.” ...
Increasingly, traders ship biodiesel from Asia or Europe to U.S. ports, where it is blended with a “splash” of regular diesel, the paper reports. That qualifies the shipment for U.S. export subsidies. Then it is shipped back to Europe where it is also subsidized. European biofuels organizations talk about between $30 million and $300 million in U.S. subsidies being exported that way to Europe.
The result? Biofuel’s already-tarnished environmental reputation comes under more fire, because round trips across the Atlantic add unnecessary transport emissions to the mix. ...
That’s what sparked an investigation last year by the European Biodiesel Board into a practice that was an open secret among biofuel firms.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/04/01/us-biofuels-subsidies-not-for-farmers-but-for-europeans/?mod=WSJBlog
I talked with Representative Collin Peterson, Chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, on April 9, 2007 during the q/a following his speech to the Hawai`i Energy Policy Forum meeting.
I asked him about the wisdom of giving federal tax credits for rainforest palm oil. He said that he opposed it, and would work to close the federal loophole. This did not occur. Too many special interests are getting rich from this scheme.
In the US we lock up regular criminals but give subsidies to biofuel criminals.
Not one Hawaii State Legislative committee has ever been willing to pass a bill out of comitteee that distinguished between good and bad biofuels.
All state subsidies and streamlined regulatory actions will go to any biofuel producer regardless of the crop (invasive, non-invasive), the farming method (organic, pesticide based), the climate impacts, the cultural impacts, etc.
-- Henry Curtis
Called "splash and dash," "touch and go," or an unfair trade practice, it features biofuels traders who exploit a US tax credit, European drivers who get cheaper diesel fuel, and American taxpayers, who are footing the bill. ...
Created under the 2004 American Jobs Act, the "blenders tax credit" was supposed to boost US production of biodiesel by encouraging US diesel marketers to blend regular petroleum diesel with fuel made from soybeans or other agricultural products. ...
The maneuver begins with a shipload of biodiesel from, say, Malaysia, which pulls into a US port ...
Then, the vessel receives from a dockside diesel supplier a "splash" of US petroleum diesel. ...
If the ship holds roughly 9 million gallons, it takes only about 9,000 gallons of traditional diesel (0.1 percent of the total) to make the entire load eligible for the blenders tax credit. The US importer of the load applies to the Internal Revenue Service for the credit – a dollar for each of the 9 million biodiesel gallons ...
The next day the tanker can set sail – dash – for Europe. ...
European biodiesel producers themselves are shipping fuel to US ports to get the US blenders credit and then bringing it back to Europe for sale, according to British press accounts.
www.csmonitor.com/2007/0608/p02s01-usec.htm
Wall Street Journal (April 1, 2008)
How big a mess is America’s biofuel policy? ...
The U.S. taxpayer forks over a $1 subsidy for every gallon of biodiesel that is blended in the U.S. for export later. The idea was to give a nudge to the U.S. biofuel industry. But it is boomeranging, as the Guardian reports today in the latest installment on biodiesel “splash-and-dash.” ...
Increasingly, traders ship biodiesel from Asia or Europe to U.S. ports, where it is blended with a “splash” of regular diesel, the paper reports. That qualifies the shipment for U.S. export subsidies. Then it is shipped back to Europe where it is also subsidized. European biofuels organizations talk about between $30 million and $300 million in U.S. subsidies being exported that way to Europe.
The result? Biofuel’s already-tarnished environmental reputation comes under more fire, because round trips across the Atlantic add unnecessary transport emissions to the mix. ...
That’s what sparked an investigation last year by the European Biodiesel Board into a practice that was an open secret among biofuel firms.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/04/01/us-biofuels-subsidies-not-for-farmers-but-for-europeans/?mod=WSJBlog
I talked with Representative Collin Peterson, Chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, on April 9, 2007 during the q/a following his speech to the Hawai`i Energy Policy Forum meeting.
I asked him about the wisdom of giving federal tax credits for rainforest palm oil. He said that he opposed it, and would work to close the federal loophole. This did not occur. Too many special interests are getting rich from this scheme.
In the US we lock up regular criminals but give subsidies to biofuel criminals.
Not one Hawaii State Legislative committee has ever been willing to pass a bill out of comitteee that distinguished between good and bad biofuels.
All state subsidies and streamlined regulatory actions will go to any biofuel producer regardless of the crop (invasive, non-invasive), the farming method (organic, pesticide based), the climate impacts, the cultural impacts, etc.
-- Henry Curtis
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Biased Facts
Using Numbers to Confuse
Bjorn Lomborg's Commentary (A better way than cap and trade, Honolulu Advertiser, June 27) implied that spending 0.05 percent of the Gross World Product (GWP) on climate mitigation research is better than spending $800 billion over 100 years on climate mitigation ($8B/yr).
The comparison is misleading. Lomborg is suggesting spending $27B/year on research instead of $8B/yr on mitigation.
The CIA's World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/xx.html) states that the Gross World Product (GWP) for 2007 is $54 trillion at the official exchange rate, or $65 trillion using purchasing power parity. Using the lower figure of $54 trillion, 1/20 of 1 percent is $27B/year.
Absolute Power Corrupts
Billionaire David Murdoch wrote HB 2863 to gut public participation in shaping his proposed mega Lana`i windfarm. Murdoch got Speaker Say to introduce a bill to kill public input, and the House passed it. The Senate wisely modified it, although they should have gone further. Now Murdoch is proposing that the Governor declare a state of emergency and ram his project through.
Billionaire wind-farm developer urges Hawaii to declare energy emergency, By Andrew Gomes (Honolulu Advertiser, July 3, 2008) Murdock, at the bill signing, said the bills removed some "roadblocks" but fell short of real expedition. "This bill opens up the right to do a lot of things," he said. "It doesn't say one word about hurrying.". ... "If you have wind power, you freeze the price (of electricity)," he said. "The whole state has an emergency. I'm fighting for all the people of Hawai'i."
What is up with the following statement?: "Murdock's proposal is something that should be seriously looked at," said House Majority Leader Kirk Caldwell, who with other Legislative leaders met with Murdock in a private briefing on Tuesday.
Honolulu Advertiser Editorial
Energy crisis demands action by state leaders (July 3, 2008)
An energy crisis is not just looming over Hawai'i: It's upon us. That point is being hammered home by David Murdock, a man of considerable energy himself, and financial power as well.
Murdock owns Castle & Cooke and most of Lana'i, where a 400-megawatt windfarm is under development and in need of permits. Too many permits, Murdock believes, and approvals that take too long. In the expected five to seven years it will take to get the permits, rising fuel prices will inflate the costs of its completion. The pace needs to be sped up, he said — and he's right.
Fuel costs are rising so fast that business-as-usual timetables for approving alternative-energy projects are becoming increasingly impractical. Castle & Cooke has forged an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy and Maui Electric Co. to apply federal funds and cooperation in getting Lana'i off fossil fuels and channeling much of its green energy toward O'ahu.
But looking beyond the Lana'i pilot project, Murdock sees businesses in peril statewide and wants the governor and other leaders to recognize that our enslavement to fossil fuels could bankrupt even more. Because legislation passed last session does not set a firm timetable for permit approvals, he said, the governor should declare a state of emergency to finish renewable energy projects faster.
State leaders need to face reality and take action. Are we in dire straits due to the ripple effect of energy costs? Yes. Do we need leadership to give Hawai'i more control of its energy future? Absolutely. They must also answer harder questions: What are the benchmarks — beyond completing the current windfarm and solar projects — that must be met for the "emergency" to be lifted? The toughest question, however, demands an answer from the state Capitol: Crises demand quick action. So, governor and lawmakers, what is your plan?
Response
Before telling others to come up with a plan, what is the Honolulu Advertiser‘s plan to get us off oil? Does it involve gutting public participation to ram through projects based not on realistic solutions, but rather on the political muscle of their proponents.
Facts
(1) Conservation and efficiency should come first
(2) Wind, solar and wave energy reduce the need for oil but not the need for fossil fuel power plants.
(3) Electric Vehicles can be powered by night time wind and wave electricity
(4) Only baseload renewable energy will displace the need for fossil fuel power plants
(5) Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) is Baseload renewable energy
(6) Sea Water Air Conditioning (SWAC) is Baseload Displacement
(7) Wind, solar and wave energy can be firmed up to provide greater reliability.
(8) Destroying rainforests to create palm oil electricity has never be tried anywhere in the world, and for good reason.
We should be 100% renewable by 2020, excluding airplanes. This can be accomplished without a single cut in public participation, or decrease in community meetings.
It does require that we all join together, rather than have 5-10 people huddle in a room to determine which millionaires/billionaires should get richer.
Wall Street Journal June 30, 2008
For article, click on: Hawaii the Alternative State
The article gave an overview of the great efforts by Darren Kimura (Concentrated Solar Energy) and Dr. David Rezachek (Sea Water Air Conditioning).
The article also talked about the location and cultural limitations for geothermal expansion, and algae as the ultimate solution
However, the article included misleading information on HECO’s proposed palm oil to electricity power plant. And it omitted the fact that Hawaiian Electric Company has insisted that most of the documents associated with their biofuel endeavor be confidential, including those that focus on the utility’s biofuel policy.
The article went on to state: ''Not all the technologies are problem free. Environmentalists want to make sure, for example, that Hawaiian Electric doesn't import any of its palm oil from endangered rainforests in Asia. Utility officials say that their palm oil will come from sustainable sources, and that over time the plant will rely more on crops grown in Hawaii.''
This is considerably weaker that the WSJ statement from 2006 re palm oil. ''Alternative Energy Heats Up, Environmental Concerns Grow'' (WSJ, December 5, 2006, page A1) pointed out the danger of palm oil electricity and the impact of palm plantations on health, biodiversity and climate.
Bjorn Lomborg's Commentary (A better way than cap and trade, Honolulu Advertiser, June 27) implied that spending 0.05 percent of the Gross World Product (GWP) on climate mitigation research is better than spending $800 billion over 100 years on climate mitigation ($8B/yr).
The comparison is misleading. Lomborg is suggesting spending $27B/year on research instead of $8B/yr on mitigation.
The CIA's World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/xx.html) states that the Gross World Product (GWP) for 2007 is $54 trillion at the official exchange rate, or $65 trillion using purchasing power parity. Using the lower figure of $54 trillion, 1/20 of 1 percent is $27B/year.
Absolute Power Corrupts
Billionaire David Murdoch wrote HB 2863 to gut public participation in shaping his proposed mega Lana`i windfarm. Murdoch got Speaker Say to introduce a bill to kill public input, and the House passed it. The Senate wisely modified it, although they should have gone further. Now Murdoch is proposing that the Governor declare a state of emergency and ram his project through.
Billionaire wind-farm developer urges Hawaii to declare energy emergency, By Andrew Gomes (Honolulu Advertiser, July 3, 2008) Murdock, at the bill signing, said the bills removed some "roadblocks" but fell short of real expedition. "This bill opens up the right to do a lot of things," he said. "It doesn't say one word about hurrying.". ... "If you have wind power, you freeze the price (of electricity)," he said. "The whole state has an emergency. I'm fighting for all the people of Hawai'i."
What is up with the following statement?: "Murdock's proposal is something that should be seriously looked at," said House Majority Leader Kirk Caldwell, who with other Legislative leaders met with Murdock in a private briefing on Tuesday.
Honolulu Advertiser Editorial
Energy crisis demands action by state leaders (July 3, 2008)
An energy crisis is not just looming over Hawai'i: It's upon us. That point is being hammered home by David Murdock, a man of considerable energy himself, and financial power as well.
Murdock owns Castle & Cooke and most of Lana'i, where a 400-megawatt windfarm is under development and in need of permits. Too many permits, Murdock believes, and approvals that take too long. In the expected five to seven years it will take to get the permits, rising fuel prices will inflate the costs of its completion. The pace needs to be sped up, he said — and he's right.
Fuel costs are rising so fast that business-as-usual timetables for approving alternative-energy projects are becoming increasingly impractical. Castle & Cooke has forged an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy and Maui Electric Co. to apply federal funds and cooperation in getting Lana'i off fossil fuels and channeling much of its green energy toward O'ahu.
But looking beyond the Lana'i pilot project, Murdock sees businesses in peril statewide and wants the governor and other leaders to recognize that our enslavement to fossil fuels could bankrupt even more. Because legislation passed last session does not set a firm timetable for permit approvals, he said, the governor should declare a state of emergency to finish renewable energy projects faster.
State leaders need to face reality and take action. Are we in dire straits due to the ripple effect of energy costs? Yes. Do we need leadership to give Hawai'i more control of its energy future? Absolutely. They must also answer harder questions: What are the benchmarks — beyond completing the current windfarm and solar projects — that must be met for the "emergency" to be lifted? The toughest question, however, demands an answer from the state Capitol: Crises demand quick action. So, governor and lawmakers, what is your plan?
Response
Before telling others to come up with a plan, what is the Honolulu Advertiser‘s plan to get us off oil? Does it involve gutting public participation to ram through projects based not on realistic solutions, but rather on the political muscle of their proponents.
Facts
(1) Conservation and efficiency should come first
(2) Wind, solar and wave energy reduce the need for oil but not the need for fossil fuel power plants.
(3) Electric Vehicles can be powered by night time wind and wave electricity
(4) Only baseload renewable energy will displace the need for fossil fuel power plants
(5) Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) is Baseload renewable energy
(6) Sea Water Air Conditioning (SWAC) is Baseload Displacement
(7) Wind, solar and wave energy can be firmed up to provide greater reliability.
(8) Destroying rainforests to create palm oil electricity has never be tried anywhere in the world, and for good reason.
We should be 100% renewable by 2020, excluding airplanes. This can be accomplished without a single cut in public participation, or decrease in community meetings.
It does require that we all join together, rather than have 5-10 people huddle in a room to determine which millionaires/billionaires should get richer.
Wall Street Journal June 30, 2008
For article, click on: Hawaii the Alternative State
The article gave an overview of the great efforts by Darren Kimura (Concentrated Solar Energy) and Dr. David Rezachek (Sea Water Air Conditioning).
The article also talked about the location and cultural limitations for geothermal expansion, and algae as the ultimate solution
However, the article included misleading information on HECO’s proposed palm oil to electricity power plant. And it omitted the fact that Hawaiian Electric Company has insisted that most of the documents associated with their biofuel endeavor be confidential, including those that focus on the utility’s biofuel policy.
The article went on to state: ''Not all the technologies are problem free. Environmentalists want to make sure, for example, that Hawaiian Electric doesn't import any of its palm oil from endangered rainforests in Asia. Utility officials say that their palm oil will come from sustainable sources, and that over time the plant will rely more on crops grown in Hawaii.''
This is considerably weaker that the WSJ statement from 2006 re palm oil. ''Alternative Energy Heats Up, Environmental Concerns Grow'' (WSJ, December 5, 2006, page A1) pointed out the danger of palm oil electricity and the impact of palm plantations on health, biodiversity and climate.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Honolulu's Light Rail Draft EIS
There are rumors that the Honolulu Mass transit proposal has eliminated all alternatives except the preferred solution. This can't be so, as it would invalidate the EIS.
At a minimum, the Draft EIS must cover at grade and elevated rail, elevated toll road, expanded bus service, alternative technology and alternative routes and spurs.
The Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) oversees implementation of the state environmental review process. The federal counterpart is the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) which oversees the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
CEQ publishes a Top 40 questions asked re NEPA. The full list can be found at http://nepa.gov/nepa/regs/40/40p3.htm
The first 10 answers can be found at http://nepa.gov/nepa/regs/40/1-10.HTM
1a. Range of Alternatives. What is meant by "range of alternatives" as referred to in Sec. 1505.1(e)?
A. The phrase "range of alternatives" refers to the alternatives discussed in environmental documents. It includes all reasonable alternatives, which must be rigorously explored and objectively evaluated, as well as those other alternatives, which are eliminated from detailed study with a brief discussion of the reasons for eliminating them. Section 1502.14. A decisionmaker must not consider alternatives beyond the range of alternatives discussed in the relevant environmental documents. Moreover, a decisionmaker must, in fact, consider all the alternatives discussed in an EIS. Section 1505.1(e).
1b. How many alternatives have to be discussed when there is an infinite number of possible alternatives?
A. For some proposals there may exist a very large or even an infinite number of possible reasonable alternatives. For example, a proposal to designate wilderness areas within a National Forest could be said to involve an infinite number of alternatives from 0 to 100 percent of the forest. When there are potentially a very large number of alternatives, only a reasonable number of examples, covering the full spectrum of alternatives, must be analyzed and compared in the EIS. An appropriate series of alternatives might include dedicating 0, 10, 30, 50, 70, 90, or 100 percent of the Forest to wilderness. What constitutes a reasonable range of alternatives depends on the nature of the proposal and the facts in each case.
2a. Alternatives Outside the Capability of Applicant or Jurisdiction of Agency. If an EIS is prepared in connection with an application for a permit or other federal approval, must the EIS rigorously analyze and discuss alternatives that are outside the capability of the applicant or can it be limited to reasonable alternatives that can be carried out by the applicant?
A. Section 1502.14 requires the EIS to examine all reasonable alternatives to the proposal. In determining the scope of alternatives to be considered, the emphasis is on what is "reasonable" rather than on whether the proponent or applicant likes or is itself capable of carrying out a particular alternative. Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant.
2b. Must the EIS analyze alternatives outside the jurisdiction or capability of the agency or beyond what Congress has authorized?
A. An alternative that is outside the legal jurisdiction of the lead agency must still be analyzed in the EIS if it is reasonable. A potential conflict with local or federal law does not necessarily render an alternative unreasonable, although such conflicts must be considered. Section 1506.2(d). Alternatives that are outside the scope of what Congress has approved or funded must still be evaluated in the EIS if they are reasonable, because the EIS may serve as the basis for modifying the Congressional approval or funding in light of NEPA's goals and policies. Section 1500.1(a).
3. No-Action Alternative. What does the "no action" alternative include? If an agency is under a court order or legislative command to act, must the EIS address the "no action" alternative?
A. Section 1502.14(d) requires the alternatives analysis in the EIS to "include the alternative of no action." There are two distinct interpretations of "no action" that must be considered, depending on the nature of the proposal being evaluated. The first situation might involve an action such as updating a land management plan where ongoing programs initiated under existing legislation and regulations will continue, even as new plans are developed. In these cases "no action" is "no change" from current management direction or level of management intensity.
To construct an alternative that is based on no management at all would be a useless academic exercise. Therefore, the "no action" alternative may be thought of in terms of continuing with the present course of action until that action is changed. Consequently, projected impacts of alternative management schemes would be compared in the EIS to those impacts projected for the existing plan. In this case, alternatives would include management plans of both greater and lesser intensity, especially greater and lesser levels of resource development.
The second interpretation of "no action" is illustrated in instances involving federal decisions on proposals for projects. "No action" in such cases would mean the proposed activity would not take place, and the resulting environmental effects from taking no action would be compared with the effects of permitting the proposed activity or an alternative activity to go forward.
Where a choice of "no action" by the agency would result in predictable actions by others, this consequence of the "no action" alternative should be included in the analysis. For example, if denial of permission to build a railroad to a facility would lead to construction of a road and increased truck traffic, the EIS should analyze this consequence of the "no action" alternative.
In light of the above, it is difficult to think of a situation where it would not be appropriate to address a "no action" alternative. Accordingly, the regulations require the analysis of the no action alternative even if the agency is under a court order or legislative command to act. This analysis provides a benchmark, enabling decisionmakers to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives. It is also an example of a reasonable alternative outside the jurisdiction of the agency which must be analyzed. Section 1502.14(c). See Question 2 above. Inclusion of such an analysis in the EIS is necessary to inform the Congress, the public, and the President as intended by NEPA. Section 1500.1(a).
4a. Agency's Preferred Alternative. What is the "agency's preferred alternative"?
A. The "agency's preferred alternative" is the alternative which the agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical and other factors. The concept of the "agency's preferred alternative" is different from the "environmentally preferable alternative," although in some cases one alternative may be both. See Question 6 below. It is identified so that agencies and the public can understand the lead agency's orientation.
4b. Does the "preferred alternative" have to be identified in the Draft EIS and the Final EIS or just in the Final EIS?
A. Section 1502.14(e) requires the section of the EIS on alternatives to "identify the agency's preferred alternative if one or more exists, in the draft statement, and identify such alternative in the final statement . . ." This means that if the agency has a preferred alternative at the Draft EIS stage, that alternative must be labeled or identified as such in the Draft EIS. If the responsible federal official in fact has no preferred alternative at the Draft EIS stage, a preferred alternative need not be identified there. By the time the Final EIS is filed, Section 1502.14(e) presumes the existence of a preferred alternative and requires its identification in the Final EIS "unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference."
4c. Who recommends or determines the "preferred alternative?"
A. The lead agency's official with line responsibility for preparing the EIS and assuring its adequacy is responsible for identifying the agency's preferred alternative(s). The NEPA regulations do not dictate which official in an agency shall be responsible for preparation of EISs, but agencies can identify this official in their implementing procedures, pursuant to Section 1507.3.
Even though the agency's preferred alternative is identified by the EIS preparer in the EIS, the statement must be objectively prepared and not slanted to support the choice of the agency's preferred alternative over the other reasonable and feasible alternatives.
5a. Proposed Action v. Preferred Alternative. Is the "proposed action" the same thing as the "preferred alternative"?
A. The "proposed action" may be, but is not necessarily, the agency's "preferred alternative." The proposed action may be a proposal in its initial form before undergoing analysis in the EIS process. If the proposed action is [46 FR 18028] internally generated, such as preparing a land management plan, the proposed action might end up as the agency's preferred alternative. On the other hand the proposed action may be granting an application to a non-federal entity for a permit. The agency may or may not have a "preferred alternative" at the Draft EIS stage (see Question 4 above). In that case the agency may decide at the Final EIS stage, on the basis of the Draft EIS and the public and agency comments, that an alternative other than the proposed action is the agency's "preferred alternative."
5b. Is the analysis of the "proposed action" in an EIS to be treated differently from the analysis of alternatives?
A. The degree of analysis devoted to each alternative in the EIS is to be substantially similar to that devoted to the "proposed action." Section 1502.14 is titled "Alternatives including the proposed action" to reflect such comparable treatment. Section 1502.14(b) specifically requires "substantial treatment" in the EIS of each alternative including the proposed action. This regulation does not dictate an amount of information to be provided, but rather, prescribes a level of treatment, which may in turn require varying amounts of information, to enable a reviewer to evaluate and compare alternatives.
6a. Environmentally Preferable Alternative. What is the meaning of the term "environmentally preferable alternative" as used in the regulations with reference to Records of Decision? How is the term "environment" used in the phrase?
A. Section 1505.2(b) requires that, in cases where an EIS has been prepared, the Record of Decision (ROD) must identify all alternatives that were considered, ". . . specifying the alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable." The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources.
The Council recognizes that the identification of the environmentally preferable alternative may involve difficult judgments, particularly when one environmental value must be balanced against another. The public and other agencies reviewing a Draft EIS can assist the lead agency to develop and determine environmentally preferable alternatives by providing their views in comments on the Draft EIS. Through the identification of the environmentally preferable alternative, the decisionmaker is clearly faced with a choice between that alternative and others, and must consider whether the decision accords with the Congressionally declared policies of the Act.
6b. Who recommends or determines what is environmentally preferable?
A. The agency EIS staff is encouraged to make recommendations of the environmentally preferable alternative(s) during EIS preparation. In any event the lead agency official responsible for the EIS is encouraged to identify the environmentally preferable alternative(s) in the EIS. In all cases, commentors from other agencies and the public are also encouraged to address this question. The agency must identify the environmentally preferable alternative in the ROD.
At a minimum, the Draft EIS must cover at grade and elevated rail, elevated toll road, expanded bus service, alternative technology and alternative routes and spurs.
The Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) oversees implementation of the state environmental review process. The federal counterpart is the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) which oversees the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
CEQ publishes a Top 40 questions asked re NEPA. The full list can be found at http://nepa.gov/nepa/regs/40/40p3.htm
The first 10 answers can be found at http://nepa.gov/nepa/regs/40/1-10.HTM
1a. Range of Alternatives. What is meant by "range of alternatives" as referred to in Sec. 1505.1(e)?
A. The phrase "range of alternatives" refers to the alternatives discussed in environmental documents. It includes all reasonable alternatives, which must be rigorously explored and objectively evaluated, as well as those other alternatives, which are eliminated from detailed study with a brief discussion of the reasons for eliminating them. Section 1502.14. A decisionmaker must not consider alternatives beyond the range of alternatives discussed in the relevant environmental documents. Moreover, a decisionmaker must, in fact, consider all the alternatives discussed in an EIS. Section 1505.1(e).
1b. How many alternatives have to be discussed when there is an infinite number of possible alternatives?
A. For some proposals there may exist a very large or even an infinite number of possible reasonable alternatives. For example, a proposal to designate wilderness areas within a National Forest could be said to involve an infinite number of alternatives from 0 to 100 percent of the forest. When there are potentially a very large number of alternatives, only a reasonable number of examples, covering the full spectrum of alternatives, must be analyzed and compared in the EIS. An appropriate series of alternatives might include dedicating 0, 10, 30, 50, 70, 90, or 100 percent of the Forest to wilderness. What constitutes a reasonable range of alternatives depends on the nature of the proposal and the facts in each case.
2a. Alternatives Outside the Capability of Applicant or Jurisdiction of Agency. If an EIS is prepared in connection with an application for a permit or other federal approval, must the EIS rigorously analyze and discuss alternatives that are outside the capability of the applicant or can it be limited to reasonable alternatives that can be carried out by the applicant?
A. Section 1502.14 requires the EIS to examine all reasonable alternatives to the proposal. In determining the scope of alternatives to be considered, the emphasis is on what is "reasonable" rather than on whether the proponent or applicant likes or is itself capable of carrying out a particular alternative. Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant.
2b. Must the EIS analyze alternatives outside the jurisdiction or capability of the agency or beyond what Congress has authorized?
A. An alternative that is outside the legal jurisdiction of the lead agency must still be analyzed in the EIS if it is reasonable. A potential conflict with local or federal law does not necessarily render an alternative unreasonable, although such conflicts must be considered. Section 1506.2(d). Alternatives that are outside the scope of what Congress has approved or funded must still be evaluated in the EIS if they are reasonable, because the EIS may serve as the basis for modifying the Congressional approval or funding in light of NEPA's goals and policies. Section 1500.1(a).
3. No-Action Alternative. What does the "no action" alternative include? If an agency is under a court order or legislative command to act, must the EIS address the "no action" alternative?
A. Section 1502.14(d) requires the alternatives analysis in the EIS to "include the alternative of no action." There are two distinct interpretations of "no action" that must be considered, depending on the nature of the proposal being evaluated. The first situation might involve an action such as updating a land management plan where ongoing programs initiated under existing legislation and regulations will continue, even as new plans are developed. In these cases "no action" is "no change" from current management direction or level of management intensity.
To construct an alternative that is based on no management at all would be a useless academic exercise. Therefore, the "no action" alternative may be thought of in terms of continuing with the present course of action until that action is changed. Consequently, projected impacts of alternative management schemes would be compared in the EIS to those impacts projected for the existing plan. In this case, alternatives would include management plans of both greater and lesser intensity, especially greater and lesser levels of resource development.
The second interpretation of "no action" is illustrated in instances involving federal decisions on proposals for projects. "No action" in such cases would mean the proposed activity would not take place, and the resulting environmental effects from taking no action would be compared with the effects of permitting the proposed activity or an alternative activity to go forward.
Where a choice of "no action" by the agency would result in predictable actions by others, this consequence of the "no action" alternative should be included in the analysis. For example, if denial of permission to build a railroad to a facility would lead to construction of a road and increased truck traffic, the EIS should analyze this consequence of the "no action" alternative.
In light of the above, it is difficult to think of a situation where it would not be appropriate to address a "no action" alternative. Accordingly, the regulations require the analysis of the no action alternative even if the agency is under a court order or legislative command to act. This analysis provides a benchmark, enabling decisionmakers to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives. It is also an example of a reasonable alternative outside the jurisdiction of the agency which must be analyzed. Section 1502.14(c). See Question 2 above. Inclusion of such an analysis in the EIS is necessary to inform the Congress, the public, and the President as intended by NEPA. Section 1500.1(a).
4a. Agency's Preferred Alternative. What is the "agency's preferred alternative"?
A. The "agency's preferred alternative" is the alternative which the agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical and other factors. The concept of the "agency's preferred alternative" is different from the "environmentally preferable alternative," although in some cases one alternative may be both. See Question 6 below. It is identified so that agencies and the public can understand the lead agency's orientation.
4b. Does the "preferred alternative" have to be identified in the Draft EIS and the Final EIS or just in the Final EIS?
A. Section 1502.14(e) requires the section of the EIS on alternatives to "identify the agency's preferred alternative if one or more exists, in the draft statement, and identify such alternative in the final statement . . ." This means that if the agency has a preferred alternative at the Draft EIS stage, that alternative must be labeled or identified as such in the Draft EIS. If the responsible federal official in fact has no preferred alternative at the Draft EIS stage, a preferred alternative need not be identified there. By the time the Final EIS is filed, Section 1502.14(e) presumes the existence of a preferred alternative and requires its identification in the Final EIS "unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference."
4c. Who recommends or determines the "preferred alternative?"
A. The lead agency's official with line responsibility for preparing the EIS and assuring its adequacy is responsible for identifying the agency's preferred alternative(s). The NEPA regulations do not dictate which official in an agency shall be responsible for preparation of EISs, but agencies can identify this official in their implementing procedures, pursuant to Section 1507.3.
Even though the agency's preferred alternative is identified by the EIS preparer in the EIS, the statement must be objectively prepared and not slanted to support the choice of the agency's preferred alternative over the other reasonable and feasible alternatives.
5a. Proposed Action v. Preferred Alternative. Is the "proposed action" the same thing as the "preferred alternative"?
A. The "proposed action" may be, but is not necessarily, the agency's "preferred alternative." The proposed action may be a proposal in its initial form before undergoing analysis in the EIS process. If the proposed action is [46 FR 18028] internally generated, such as preparing a land management plan, the proposed action might end up as the agency's preferred alternative. On the other hand the proposed action may be granting an application to a non-federal entity for a permit. The agency may or may not have a "preferred alternative" at the Draft EIS stage (see Question 4 above). In that case the agency may decide at the Final EIS stage, on the basis of the Draft EIS and the public and agency comments, that an alternative other than the proposed action is the agency's "preferred alternative."
5b. Is the analysis of the "proposed action" in an EIS to be treated differently from the analysis of alternatives?
A. The degree of analysis devoted to each alternative in the EIS is to be substantially similar to that devoted to the "proposed action." Section 1502.14 is titled "Alternatives including the proposed action" to reflect such comparable treatment. Section 1502.14(b) specifically requires "substantial treatment" in the EIS of each alternative including the proposed action. This regulation does not dictate an amount of information to be provided, but rather, prescribes a level of treatment, which may in turn require varying amounts of information, to enable a reviewer to evaluate and compare alternatives.
6a. Environmentally Preferable Alternative. What is the meaning of the term "environmentally preferable alternative" as used in the regulations with reference to Records of Decision? How is the term "environment" used in the phrase?
A. Section 1505.2(b) requires that, in cases where an EIS has been prepared, the Record of Decision (ROD) must identify all alternatives that were considered, ". . . specifying the alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable." The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources.
The Council recognizes that the identification of the environmentally preferable alternative may involve difficult judgments, particularly when one environmental value must be balanced against another. The public and other agencies reviewing a Draft EIS can assist the lead agency to develop and determine environmentally preferable alternatives by providing their views in comments on the Draft EIS. Through the identification of the environmentally preferable alternative, the decisionmaker is clearly faced with a choice between that alternative and others, and must consider whether the decision accords with the Congressionally declared policies of the Act.
6b. Who recommends or determines what is environmentally preferable?
A. The agency EIS staff is encouraged to make recommendations of the environmentally preferable alternative(s) during EIS preparation. In any event the lead agency official responsible for the EIS is encouraged to identify the environmentally preferable alternative(s) in the EIS. In all cases, commentors from other agencies and the public are also encouraged to address this question. The agency must identify the environmentally preferable alternative in the ROD.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Hawaii's Bioenergy Master Plan
The Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT) held their Kickoff Meeting for the Development of Hawaii's Bioenergy Master Plan on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at the State Capitol Auditorium.
The list of speakers was not available until the day of the kickoff.
The Kickoff began at 8:30 a.m.
The first audience question was at 2:26 p.m.
DBEDT failed to explain how this was the ''Biofuel Kickoff'' since:
* DBEDT organized and sponsored the invitation-only secretive Governor’s Hawaii Biofuels Summit in August 2006.
* DBEDT co-organized and co-sponsored the Hawaii Bioenergy Workshop in October 2006 in conjunction with the Hawaii Agriculture Conference.
* DBEDT worked with UH-Hawaii Natural Energy Institute to prepare the “Potential for Ethanol Production in Hawaii Report” completed in December 2006.
* DBEDT held the Hawaii Energy Strategy Stakeholder Meeting #3 on December 13, 2006 and DBEDT's consultant Joel Swisher (Managing Director, Rocky Mountain Institute) stated: ''In the model, we assumed that carbon dioxide emissions from biofuels production have net zero emissions.''
DBEDT kicked-off a two-year Biofuels Assessment Project to conduct a statewide, multi-fuel biofuels production assessment in July 2007.
DBEDT alleged that ''nothing has been written'', that the report will be written in the future.
DBEDT ostensibly is seeking public input, but the first audience question was not permitted until after lunch, when half of the audience had already left.
Nothing new was presented. Short presentations were made (5 minutes per speaker) with no opportunity for questions, not even between speakers. Some of the presenters were informed just a few days before the Event that they would speak.
Not on the agenda were issues like:
Food vs. Fuel
Biofuel used for transportation vs. electricity generation
Transparency
Genetic Engineering
Sustainability
This meeting was held on this particular day because government, venture capitalists, investors, commodity traders, and business executives were holding a series of closed meetings.
The meeting was run by the DBEDT Engineer who oversaw DBEDT's ethanol campaign, rammed through without public input.
The list of speakers was not available until the day of the kickoff.
The Kickoff began at 8:30 a.m.
The first audience question was at 2:26 p.m.
DBEDT failed to explain how this was the ''Biofuel Kickoff'' since:
* DBEDT organized and sponsored the invitation-only secretive Governor’s Hawaii Biofuels Summit in August 2006.
* DBEDT co-organized and co-sponsored the Hawaii Bioenergy Workshop in October 2006 in conjunction with the Hawaii Agriculture Conference.
* DBEDT worked with UH-Hawaii Natural Energy Institute to prepare the “Potential for Ethanol Production in Hawaii Report” completed in December 2006.
* DBEDT held the Hawaii Energy Strategy Stakeholder Meeting #3 on December 13, 2006 and DBEDT's consultant Joel Swisher (Managing Director, Rocky Mountain Institute) stated: ''In the model, we assumed that carbon dioxide emissions from biofuels production have net zero emissions.''
DBEDT kicked-off a two-year Biofuels Assessment Project to conduct a statewide, multi-fuel biofuels production assessment in July 2007.
DBEDT alleged that ''nothing has been written'', that the report will be written in the future.
DBEDT ostensibly is seeking public input, but the first audience question was not permitted until after lunch, when half of the audience had already left.
Nothing new was presented. Short presentations were made (5 minutes per speaker) with no opportunity for questions, not even between speakers. Some of the presenters were informed just a few days before the Event that they would speak.
Not on the agenda were issues like:
Food vs. Fuel
Biofuel used for transportation vs. electricity generation
Transparency
Genetic Engineering
Sustainability
This meeting was held on this particular day because government, venture capitalists, investors, commodity traders, and business executives were holding a series of closed meetings.
The meeting was run by the DBEDT Engineer who oversaw DBEDT's ethanol campaign, rammed through without public input.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative
BACKGROUND
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), in cooperation with the State of Hawaii is seeking the transformation of Hawaii’s energy sector. The intended goal is to accelerate use of renewable, indigenous energy resources in Hawaii while decreasing energy demand by increasing energy efficiency technology market adoption in residential, building, industrial, utility, and transportation end-use sectors.
[Ed. Five Working Groups have been established: Generation, Transmission & Distribution, End-User Efficiency, Transportation (including biofuels and advanced transportation technologies), and Integration]
DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has signed a memorandum of understanding with UPC Wind to establish a Remote Research Affiliate Partner Site at UPC Wind’s Kaheawa Wind Farm on Maui. It is the first such partner site for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s wind technology program outside of its base in Colorado.
DAY 1
The Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative kicked off 4 days of meetings on Tuesday, August 22, 2008. Seventy invitees attended the first day of the event held at HECO's 900 Richards Street headquarters. The majority were from 4 entities: HECO (12), Consumer Advocate (10), DBEDT (9), and US Department of Energy (DOE) (5).
There were representatives from three counties (Kauai, Maui and Honolulu), three Independent Power Producers (UPC Wind, Sun Edison, Imperium Biofuels), Hawaii Renewable Energy Alliance, Hawaii Solar Energy Association, Hawaii Energy Policy Forum, University of Hawai`i's Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, Kauai Island Utility Coop, The Gas Company, and Life of the Land.
The Governor and the DBEDT Director gave opening remarks.
The Governor noted that this initiative would succeed with the leadership of the utilities, the chairman and commissioners of the PUC, the Consumer Advocate, Legislators, My Administration working with DOE, the private sector, and especially the utilities. We need to overcome regulatory and infrastructure challenges to achieve our clean energy vision. There is the risk of bad policy as with ethanol which is subsidized by the government and has caused a run up in food prices. We are bringing in the experts who think about this issue day and night. They will show us the best practices, innovative practices that will be implemented here. We're such an easy place to ignore, we're so small, but we got DOE's attention with Ted's persistence. We're not to proud to say we need help and we need it now. We are grateful to you [DOE].
[Ed. She thanked the utilities, but did not mention counties, environmental, cultural, or community groups].
DBEDT Director Ted Liu stated:
''Clearly we're at the right place to begin thinking about Hawai`i's energy future.''
Then Kevin Kolevar spoke.
[Ed. Kolevar is the Assistant Secretary for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability at DOE. He worked on analysis of electricity congestion, the designation of draft National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors, the coordination of energy corridors across federal lands, and with the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies to enhance the security and resiliency of the nation's critical energy infrastructure, and facilitate the reconstruction and recovery of damaged or disrupted energy systems following Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.
Before joining DOE, Kolevar spent over ten years serving as US Senate staff in the offices of Senators Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.) and Connie Mack (R-Fla.)].
Kolevar said that this is a drive towards fundamentals. How do we regulate the grid. This country is founded on bold ideas. We have technical challenges. Putting up wind mills for the sake of wind mills while risking the reliability of the grid. Regulatory challenges. Its going to be an on going challenge. Goals, challenges, implementation. ''I think this is going to outlive the Bush Administration.''
Alison Silverstein was the presenter for the day. She stated ''This is not us lecturing you. This is us sharing with you and you responding to us.''
[Ed. Alison Silverstein worked as Advisor to Pat Wood, III from 1995 through 2004. Pat Wood was the longest-serving appointee of George W. Bush. Governor Bush appointed him to the PUC of Texas (Chairman 1995-2001) and then President George W. Bush appointed him to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Wood was also an associate project engineer with Arco Indonesia.
At FERC, Silverstein served as the agency’s lead on infrastructure security, cyber-security and energy reliability and co-chaired the investigation for the US-Canada Joint Power System Outage Task Force and was principal author of the Interim and Final Blackout Reports. Before FERC, she worked for Pacific Gas & Electric Co., ICF Inc., the Environmental Law Institute, and the U.S. Department of Interior.]
Silverstein told the audience that Enron and Goldman Sachs had made a presentation to the Texas PUC in the 1990s. Enron felt that California legislators and PUC Commissioners were whack jobs. Enron felt that the risk of investing in South American countries was less than investing in California. Thus part of what comes out of changes must be to increase certainty.
Silverstein said there were some ocean energy R&D experiments ... ''probably in the next five years nothing is going to happen'' to commercialize ocean energy.
Silverstein said that nothing should be left off the table. Maybe you would have far better return on investments by returning the energy efficiency programs to the utilities who have far better experience in knowing the technology and better contact within the business sector.
[Ed. To avoid their inherent conflict between a utility selling electricity for profit and installing energy efficiency devices which decrease the demand for electricity, all HECO energy efficiency programs (but not load management programs) are being transferred to a new Energy Efficiency Utility. The PUC is issuing a Request For Proposal which the HECO family of companies are not permitted to bid on. This complex issue, played out in regulatory proceedings over a 3 year period, pitted the state and over a dozen parties on one side and HECO on the other side. Silverstein appeared to be taking the utility position. When quizzed on this she stated that she wasn't taking a position on this, its just that nothing should be taken off the table. On the other hand, on issues the utility opposes - widespread adoption of wave energy, sea water air conditioning, ocean thermal energy conversion ... they are not on her table].
Silverstein stated that utilities have the expertise and understanding of the grid to determine where Distributed Combined Heat and Power (Cogeneration; CHP) systems should be installed. She stated: They know best where CHP should go on the system. Do you want to exclude them because of a rule or let them install CHP. Give them a piece of the skin, unless there is a really good reason to exclude them from the game.
[Ed. This is another utility position widely opposed by Distributed Generation installers, trade groups, LOL, DBEDT and the PUC. This was a multi-year fight that the utility lost.]
Silverstein stated that utilities hate rate cases because they must answer all types of questions by intervenors who they must fund.
[Ed. In some states, third parties who intervene and present testimony that saves ratepayers money are given some compensation for their costs. The Hawaii PUC does not permit intervention in rate cases]
KIUC's Tim Blume noted that energy demand through the installation of energy efficiencies can't be counted on a one-to-one basis. Take a family which installs a solar water heater and sees there energy bill drop. Using the savings they buy an air conditioner.
[Ed. This argument was pointed out to me by Maui County's Kal Kobayashi some time ago: if a corporation cuts energy costs, this often leads to higher corporate profits which can then be spent expanding the business which requires more energy. The alleged energy savings are counted by utilities as demonstrating that they are reducing demand. As a reward for cutting demand, PUCs reward the utility with ratepayer financed bonuses. The contradiction leads to a mind boggling conundrum].
[Ed. During the first two days HECO and the Consumer Advocate barely said anything during the sessions, initiated by themselves or in responding to presenters or others.]
DAY 2
Alison Silverstein opened by stating "If you are a writer or blogger consider not posting until after Friday. That way we can have an open discussion. When you hear from us, do not assume you are hearing from DOE, your not, your hearing from us."
She than led a fascinating discussion and showed great depth of understanding of the issues involved.
Wayne Shirley gave the presentation and both he and Silverstein responded to questions.
Wayne Shirley is a Director of The Regulatory Assistance Project. He served as Commissioner of the New Mexico Public Utility Commission from March 1995 to December 1998, serving as Chairman from August 1995 to December 1998.
While a Commissioner he was a member of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) Committee on Energy Resources and the Environment and the NARUC Ad Hoc Committee on Electric Industry Restructuring. Prior to serving on the New Mexico PUC, he held a variety of regulatory positions including General Counsel of the New Mexico State Corporation Commission, Director of the Energy Unit of the New Mexico Attorney General's Office, where he was New Mexico's chief consumer advocate, and as attorney for the New Mexico Industrial Energy Consumers.
He has also shared his regulatory expertise with regulators and governments of China, India, the Philippines, Zambia, Mozambique, Namibia, Lesotho, Mauritius, Poland, Malawi, Ghana, Indonesia, Egypt, Nepal, Bangladesh and Khyrgistan. He received his J.D. in 1976 from the Southern Methodist University School of Law and a Bachelor of Business Administration in Finance in 1973 from the University of Texas at Austin.
The Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP) is a non-profit organization, formed in 1992 by experienced utility regulators, that provides research, analysis, and educational assistance to public officials on electric utility regulation.
RAP workshops cover a wide range of topics including electric utility restructuring, power sector reform, renewable resource development, the development of efficient markets, performance-based regulation, demand-side management, and green pricing. RAP also provides regulators with technical assistance, training, and policy research and development. RAP has worked with public utility regulators and energy officials in 45 states, Washington D.C., Brazil, India, Namibia, China, Egypt, and a number of other countries.
RAP principals and associates have also written and spoken extensively on energy policy and regulation. RAP Issuesletters, published quarterly, and RAP’s many in-depth reports and conference presentations provide serious and thoughtful discussion of cutting-edge issues in industry restructuring (e.g. market power, stranded costs, system benefits charges, customer choice, and consumer protection), and other current topics (e.g. resource portfolio management, policies for distributed generation and demand-side resources, distribution system regulation, reliability and risk management, rate design, electrical energy security, and environmental protection). http://www.raponline.org/
DAY 3
Richard Sedano is a Director of The Regulatory Assistance Project. Among his projects, Mr. Sedano is the facilitator of the Mid-Atlantic Distributed Resource Initiative. Prior to joining RAP in 2001, Mr. Sedano served as Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service (VDPS) for nine years, and in staff positions for seven more. The VDPS represents utility consumers in all regulatory matters, and is the state's energy office and consumer advocate. Mr. Sedano served as chair of the National Association of State Energy Officials from 1998-2000.
He is currently a member of the Board of Directors of Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, EVermont, the Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy, and the Energy Team for the City of Montpelier. He was a member of the Task Force on Reliability to the US Secretary of Energy's Advisory Committee from 1997-1998, and a member of the Advisory Committee to the ISO-New England Board of Directors from 1999-2003. Mr. Sedano received his Sc.B. in Engineering from Brown University, and his M.S. in Engineering Management from Drexel University.
Jennifer Decesaro
Senior Analyst at Exeter Associates, Inc, Washington, D.C. Exeter Associates, Inc. provides economic and financial consulting services in the areas of public utility regulation, energy, telecommunications, and antitrust economics. The firm maintains the highest standards in the application of economic and financial analyses to both quantitative and policy issues in the electric, gas, telephone and other industries.
Project Director: Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA), Montpelier, Vermont. CESA is managed by Clean Energy Group, Inc. (CEG), a nonprofit 501(c)(3), publicly supported charitable organization. CEG (www.cleanegroup.org) was established in January 1998 to promote market-based actions to replace the existing electricity generation system with new, less polluting.
Jennifer manages joint projects on clean energy technologies and market development with state funds. As part of this work, she analyzes fuel cell and hydrogen technology commercialization opportunities and develops collaborative strategies for state and federal fuel cell program managers. Jenn is also involved with the CESA RPS Implementation project, the farm methane and biomass development project, and community wind.
Policy Specialist In the Environment, Energy and Transportation Program, National Conference of State Legislatures. Denver, CO 80230. NCSL is a bipartisan organization dedicated to serving the lawmakers and staff of the nation's 50 states, its commonwealths and territories. The National Conference of State Legislatures provides research and technical assistance to and opportunities for state legislators to exchange. As a policy analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures, notes that she has recently observed an upturn in the number of state incentives for biofuels. She adds that that success should not be measured by the shear number of incentive programs but rather by the extent to which the incentives are actually utilized. DeCesaro suggested that as time goes on it is likely that some adjustments will be required.
B.S. Environmental Biology, Colorado College. Environmental Law, Vermont Law School.
Bioenergy: Power, Fuels, and Products by M. Brown, J. DeCesaro. National Conference of State Legislatures. 2006
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), in cooperation with the State of Hawaii is seeking the transformation of Hawaii’s energy sector. The intended goal is to accelerate use of renewable, indigenous energy resources in Hawaii while decreasing energy demand by increasing energy efficiency technology market adoption in residential, building, industrial, utility, and transportation end-use sectors.
[Ed. Five Working Groups have been established: Generation, Transmission & Distribution, End-User Efficiency, Transportation (including biofuels and advanced transportation technologies), and Integration]
DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has signed a memorandum of understanding with UPC Wind to establish a Remote Research Affiliate Partner Site at UPC Wind’s Kaheawa Wind Farm on Maui. It is the first such partner site for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s wind technology program outside of its base in Colorado.
DAY 1
The Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative kicked off 4 days of meetings on Tuesday, August 22, 2008. Seventy invitees attended the first day of the event held at HECO's 900 Richards Street headquarters. The majority were from 4 entities: HECO (12), Consumer Advocate (10), DBEDT (9), and US Department of Energy (DOE) (5).
There were representatives from three counties (Kauai, Maui and Honolulu), three Independent Power Producers (UPC Wind, Sun Edison, Imperium Biofuels), Hawaii Renewable Energy Alliance, Hawaii Solar Energy Association, Hawaii Energy Policy Forum, University of Hawai`i's Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, Kauai Island Utility Coop, The Gas Company, and Life of the Land.
The Governor and the DBEDT Director gave opening remarks.
The Governor noted that this initiative would succeed with the leadership of the utilities, the chairman and commissioners of the PUC, the Consumer Advocate, Legislators, My Administration working with DOE, the private sector, and especially the utilities. We need to overcome regulatory and infrastructure challenges to achieve our clean energy vision. There is the risk of bad policy as with ethanol which is subsidized by the government and has caused a run up in food prices. We are bringing in the experts who think about this issue day and night. They will show us the best practices, innovative practices that will be implemented here. We're such an easy place to ignore, we're so small, but we got DOE's attention with Ted's persistence. We're not to proud to say we need help and we need it now. We are grateful to you [DOE].[Ed. She thanked the utilities, but did not mention counties, environmental, cultural, or community groups].
DBEDT Director Ted Liu stated:''Clearly we're at the right place to begin thinking about Hawai`i's energy future.''
Then Kevin Kolevar spoke.[Ed. Kolevar is the Assistant Secretary for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability at DOE. He worked on analysis of electricity congestion, the designation of draft National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors, the coordination of energy corridors across federal lands, and with the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies to enhance the security and resiliency of the nation's critical energy infrastructure, and facilitate the reconstruction and recovery of damaged or disrupted energy systems following Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.
Before joining DOE, Kolevar spent over ten years serving as US Senate staff in the offices of Senators Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.) and Connie Mack (R-Fla.)].
Kolevar said that this is a drive towards fundamentals. How do we regulate the grid. This country is founded on bold ideas. We have technical challenges. Putting up wind mills for the sake of wind mills while risking the reliability of the grid. Regulatory challenges. Its going to be an on going challenge. Goals, challenges, implementation. ''I think this is going to outlive the Bush Administration.''
Alison Silverstein was the presenter for the day. She stated ''This is not us lecturing you. This is us sharing with you and you responding to us.''[Ed. Alison Silverstein worked as Advisor to Pat Wood, III from 1995 through 2004. Pat Wood was the longest-serving appointee of George W. Bush. Governor Bush appointed him to the PUC of Texas (Chairman 1995-2001) and then President George W. Bush appointed him to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Wood was also an associate project engineer with Arco Indonesia.
At FERC, Silverstein served as the agency’s lead on infrastructure security, cyber-security and energy reliability and co-chaired the investigation for the US-Canada Joint Power System Outage Task Force and was principal author of the Interim and Final Blackout Reports. Before FERC, she worked for Pacific Gas & Electric Co., ICF Inc., the Environmental Law Institute, and the U.S. Department of Interior.]
Silverstein told the audience that Enron and Goldman Sachs had made a presentation to the Texas PUC in the 1990s. Enron felt that California legislators and PUC Commissioners were whack jobs. Enron felt that the risk of investing in South American countries was less than investing in California. Thus part of what comes out of changes must be to increase certainty.
Silverstein said there were some ocean energy R&D experiments ... ''probably in the next five years nothing is going to happen'' to commercialize ocean energy.
Silverstein said that nothing should be left off the table. Maybe you would have far better return on investments by returning the energy efficiency programs to the utilities who have far better experience in knowing the technology and better contact within the business sector.
[Ed. To avoid their inherent conflict between a utility selling electricity for profit and installing energy efficiency devices which decrease the demand for electricity, all HECO energy efficiency programs (but not load management programs) are being transferred to a new Energy Efficiency Utility. The PUC is issuing a Request For Proposal which the HECO family of companies are not permitted to bid on. This complex issue, played out in regulatory proceedings over a 3 year period, pitted the state and over a dozen parties on one side and HECO on the other side. Silverstein appeared to be taking the utility position. When quizzed on this she stated that she wasn't taking a position on this, its just that nothing should be taken off the table. On the other hand, on issues the utility opposes - widespread adoption of wave energy, sea water air conditioning, ocean thermal energy conversion ... they are not on her table].
Silverstein stated that utilities have the expertise and understanding of the grid to determine where Distributed Combined Heat and Power (Cogeneration; CHP) systems should be installed. She stated: They know best where CHP should go on the system. Do you want to exclude them because of a rule or let them install CHP. Give them a piece of the skin, unless there is a really good reason to exclude them from the game.
[Ed. This is another utility position widely opposed by Distributed Generation installers, trade groups, LOL, DBEDT and the PUC. This was a multi-year fight that the utility lost.]
Silverstein stated that utilities hate rate cases because they must answer all types of questions by intervenors who they must fund.
[Ed. In some states, third parties who intervene and present testimony that saves ratepayers money are given some compensation for their costs. The Hawaii PUC does not permit intervention in rate cases]
KIUC's Tim Blume noted that energy demand through the installation of energy efficiencies can't be counted on a one-to-one basis. Take a family which installs a solar water heater and sees there energy bill drop. Using the savings they buy an air conditioner.
[Ed. This argument was pointed out to me by Maui County's Kal Kobayashi some time ago: if a corporation cuts energy costs, this often leads to higher corporate profits which can then be spent expanding the business which requires more energy. The alleged energy savings are counted by utilities as demonstrating that they are reducing demand. As a reward for cutting demand, PUCs reward the utility with ratepayer financed bonuses. The contradiction leads to a mind boggling conundrum].
[Ed. During the first two days HECO and the Consumer Advocate barely said anything during the sessions, initiated by themselves or in responding to presenters or others.]
DAY 2
Alison Silverstein opened by stating "If you are a writer or blogger consider not posting until after Friday. That way we can have an open discussion. When you hear from us, do not assume you are hearing from DOE, your not, your hearing from us."
She than led a fascinating discussion and showed great depth of understanding of the issues involved.
Wayne Shirley gave the presentation and both he and Silverstein responded to questions.
Wayne Shirley is a Director of The Regulatory Assistance Project. He served as Commissioner of the New Mexico Public Utility Commission from March 1995 to December 1998, serving as Chairman from August 1995 to December 1998.While a Commissioner he was a member of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) Committee on Energy Resources and the Environment and the NARUC Ad Hoc Committee on Electric Industry Restructuring. Prior to serving on the New Mexico PUC, he held a variety of regulatory positions including General Counsel of the New Mexico State Corporation Commission, Director of the Energy Unit of the New Mexico Attorney General's Office, where he was New Mexico's chief consumer advocate, and as attorney for the New Mexico Industrial Energy Consumers.
He has also shared his regulatory expertise with regulators and governments of China, India, the Philippines, Zambia, Mozambique, Namibia, Lesotho, Mauritius, Poland, Malawi, Ghana, Indonesia, Egypt, Nepal, Bangladesh and Khyrgistan. He received his J.D. in 1976 from the Southern Methodist University School of Law and a Bachelor of Business Administration in Finance in 1973 from the University of Texas at Austin.
The Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP) is a non-profit organization, formed in 1992 by experienced utility regulators, that provides research, analysis, and educational assistance to public officials on electric utility regulation.
RAP workshops cover a wide range of topics including electric utility restructuring, power sector reform, renewable resource development, the development of efficient markets, performance-based regulation, demand-side management, and green pricing. RAP also provides regulators with technical assistance, training, and policy research and development. RAP has worked with public utility regulators and energy officials in 45 states, Washington D.C., Brazil, India, Namibia, China, Egypt, and a number of other countries.
RAP principals and associates have also written and spoken extensively on energy policy and regulation. RAP Issuesletters, published quarterly, and RAP’s many in-depth reports and conference presentations provide serious and thoughtful discussion of cutting-edge issues in industry restructuring (e.g. market power, stranded costs, system benefits charges, customer choice, and consumer protection), and other current topics (e.g. resource portfolio management, policies for distributed generation and demand-side resources, distribution system regulation, reliability and risk management, rate design, electrical energy security, and environmental protection). http://www.raponline.org/
DAY 3
Richard Sedano is a Director of The Regulatory Assistance Project. Among his projects, Mr. Sedano is the facilitator of the Mid-Atlantic Distributed Resource Initiative. Prior to joining RAP in 2001, Mr. Sedano served as Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service (VDPS) for nine years, and in staff positions for seven more. The VDPS represents utility consumers in all regulatory matters, and is the state's energy office and consumer advocate. Mr. Sedano served as chair of the National Association of State Energy Officials from 1998-2000.
He is currently a member of the Board of Directors of Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, EVermont, the Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy, and the Energy Team for the City of Montpelier. He was a member of the Task Force on Reliability to the US Secretary of Energy's Advisory Committee from 1997-1998, and a member of the Advisory Committee to the ISO-New England Board of Directors from 1999-2003. Mr. Sedano received his Sc.B. in Engineering from Brown University, and his M.S. in Engineering Management from Drexel University.
Jennifer Decesaro
Senior Analyst at Exeter Associates, Inc, Washington, D.C. Exeter Associates, Inc. provides economic and financial consulting services in the areas of public utility regulation, energy, telecommunications, and antitrust economics. The firm maintains the highest standards in the application of economic and financial analyses to both quantitative and policy issues in the electric, gas, telephone and other industries.
Project Director: Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA), Montpelier, Vermont. CESA is managed by Clean Energy Group, Inc. (CEG), a nonprofit 501(c)(3), publicly supported charitable organization. CEG (www.cleanegroup.org) was established in January 1998 to promote market-based actions to replace the existing electricity generation system with new, less polluting.
Jennifer manages joint projects on clean energy technologies and market development with state funds. As part of this work, she analyzes fuel cell and hydrogen technology commercialization opportunities and develops collaborative strategies for state and federal fuel cell program managers. Jenn is also involved with the CESA RPS Implementation project, the farm methane and biomass development project, and community wind.
Policy Specialist In the Environment, Energy and Transportation Program, National Conference of State Legislatures. Denver, CO 80230. NCSL is a bipartisan organization dedicated to serving the lawmakers and staff of the nation's 50 states, its commonwealths and territories. The National Conference of State Legislatures provides research and technical assistance to and opportunities for state legislators to exchange. As a policy analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures, notes that she has recently observed an upturn in the number of state incentives for biofuels. She adds that that success should not be measured by the shear number of incentive programs but rather by the extent to which the incentives are actually utilized. DeCesaro suggested that as time goes on it is likely that some adjustments will be required.
B.S. Environmental Biology, Colorado College. Environmental Law, Vermont Law School.
Bioenergy: Power, Fuels, and Products by M. Brown, J. DeCesaro. National Conference of State Legislatures. 2006
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Castle and Cooke's Death of Democracy Bill
HB 2863 was written by Castle and Cooke and introduced by House Speaker Say to get around all meaningful public and state and county agency review of what would be the largest energy project in the history of the State: a 300-400 MW wind farm on Lana`i interconnected to HECO's grid on O`ahu.
It can also be applied to any renewable energy, biofuel or geothermal project. The Castle and Cooke version passed the House. The Senate removed DBEDT's czarist domination role. The Bill is now in Conference Committee. This proposed Conference Committee Draft was written by Castle and Cooke. It is worse that their original bill.
Here are excepts from the proposed Conference Draft 1 written by Castle and Cooke (followed by what you can do):
SECTION 1. Over the past four years, the legislature and the department of business, economic development and tourism have committed to achieving ... increased self-sufficiency.
The legislature recognizes that private sector development of large scale projects must be encouraged and is necessary to meet the state mandate and goals for renewable energy.
Therefore, the legislature finds that there is a compelling state interest ... and that to achieve this compelling state interest, it is necessary to establish an expedited and streamlined permitting process that creates a regulatory framework that is predictable ...
SECTION 2. Renewable Energy Facility Siting Process
''Applicant'' means any person or entity who submits an application to the energy resources coordinator for a permit or approval for a renewable energy facility.
''Energy Resources Coordinator'' or ''coordinator'' means the energy resources coordinator as designated in section 196-3. [DBEDT Director]
''Permit mean any approval, no matter the nomenclature, necessary for siting, development, construction, or operation of a renewable energy facility ... including ... state land use reclassification ... county development, community, or community development plan amendment ... state conservation district use permit ... a state special permit for an agricultural or rural district ... a special management area permit ... a shoreline variance ...
''Renewable Energy'' has the same meaning as the term is defined under section 269-91.
[HRS 269-91: ''Renewable energy" means energy generated or produced utilizing the following sources: ... Wind ... sun ... Falling water ... Biogas ... Geothermal ... Ocean water, currents and waves ... Biomass ... Biofuels]
''Renewable energy facility'' or ''facility'' means a facility located in the State that is planned to have the capacity to produce from renewable energy at least two hundred megawatts of electricity.
The term includes any of the following associated with the facility: ... the land parcel on which the facility is situated ... any renewable energy production structure or equipment ... any energy transmission line from the facility to a public utility's electric distribution system ... any on-site building ...
The coordinator [DBEDT Director] shall have the power and authority, which shall be liberally construed, necessary to implement and further that renewable energy policies ...
the coordinator shall have the power and authority, as provided under this Chapter, to receive, accept, review, coordinate and approve all applications for Permits necessary for the development of a renewable energy facility on an expedited basis.
The coordinator shall coordinate and process Permits concurrently, and shall not take longer than six months following receipt of a completed consolidated application to complete the review and approval of any such application and all Permits relating thereto, subject only to final acceptance of an environmental assessment and/or environmental impact statement as may be required under Chapter 343.
Within ten days following receipt of an application or supplement thereto, the coordinator shall give written notice to the applicant as to ... any deficiencies relating thereto ... identify all state and county permits applicable ...
the coordinator ... shall determine the terms and conditions to be imposed on the state permits that are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare to the extent practicable without unduly delaying, impairing or frustrating the purpose, policies and goals of this chapter.
The terms and conditions may require the applicant to improve off-site infrastructure or establish measures to mitigate significant adverse environmental effects, but only to the extent directly caused by the applicant's renewable energy facility.
The coordinator shall make the determination for all terms and conditions of all required state permits no later than sixty days after receipt of a completed consolidated application; provided that, if an approval for a federal permit or delegated environmental permit, or acceptance of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, is prerequisite to the approval of a state permit required for the facility, the coordinator's determination shall be made, but its effectiveness shall be conditioned upon approval of the federal permit, delegated environmental permit and/or acceptance of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, as applicable.
If, within forty-five days of receipt of a recommendation from the coordinator, a county agency does not approve the county permit, either because of rejection or inaction, the permit with the terms and conditions recommended by the coordinator shall be deemed approved on the forty-sixth day without necessity of further action by the county agency or coordinator. ... Notwithstanding the action by the coordinator on a county permit ... the relevant county agency shall be responsible for monitoring and enforcing the terms and conditions of the permit.
To accomplish the concurrent review, the coordinator shall, at the applicant's request, consent to receipt and review of portions of an environmental impact statement before its completion.
The coordinator shall establish and implement a system to coordinate and concurrently process the review and approval by the public utilities commission of any power purchase agreement
Judicial review of dispute regarding approval process; inapplicability of contested case procedures. (a) Any person aggrieved by the approval of a state or county permit or the terms and condition of any approved permit may file an action for relief in the circuit court ... for the purposes of bringing judicial action under this subsection, the term ''person aggrieved'' shall include the applicant and any state or county agency, office, council or other government agency which has decision making authority related to the approved permit. Other parties, pursuant to court action, may be adjudged aggrieved. (b) The inapplicability of the use of contested case procedures pursuant to chapter 91 in the approval of any state or county permit pursuant to this chapter shall not be grounds for any judicial appeal.
Superiority of chapter over conflicting state or county law. The provisions of this chapter shall supersede any conflicting state or county law.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Make a phone call
The Conference Committee Members for the House are
Co-Chair Mina Morita (586-8435; fax 586-8437; toll free 274-3141 + 68435)
Co-Chair Ken Ito (586-8470)
Co-Chair Robert Herkes (586-8400; fax 586-8404; toll free 974-4000 + 68400)
Co-Chair Marcus Oshiro (586-6200; fax 586-6201)
Member Colleen Meyer (586-8540; fax 586-8544).
The Conference Committee Members for the Senate are
Chair Ron Menor (586-6740; fax 586-6829)
Co-Chair Clayton Hee (586-7330; Fax 586-7334)
Co-Chair Lorraine Inouye (586-7335; Fax 586-7339; toll free 974-4000 + 67335)
Co-Chair Russ Kokubun (586-6760 ; Fax 586-6689; toll free 974-4000 + 66760)
Co-Chair Roz Baker (586-6070; fax 586-6071; toll free 984-2400 + 66070)
Gordon Trimble (586-7100; fax 808-586-7109)
It can also be applied to any renewable energy, biofuel or geothermal project. The Castle and Cooke version passed the House. The Senate removed DBEDT's czarist domination role. The Bill is now in Conference Committee. This proposed Conference Committee Draft was written by Castle and Cooke. It is worse that their original bill.
Here are excepts from the proposed Conference Draft 1 written by Castle and Cooke (followed by what you can do):
SECTION 1. Over the past four years, the legislature and the department of business, economic development and tourism have committed to achieving ... increased self-sufficiency.
The legislature recognizes that private sector development of large scale projects must be encouraged and is necessary to meet the state mandate and goals for renewable energy.
Therefore, the legislature finds that there is a compelling state interest ... and that to achieve this compelling state interest, it is necessary to establish an expedited and streamlined permitting process that creates a regulatory framework that is predictable ...
SECTION 2. Renewable Energy Facility Siting Process
''Applicant'' means any person or entity who submits an application to the energy resources coordinator for a permit or approval for a renewable energy facility.
''Energy Resources Coordinator'' or ''coordinator'' means the energy resources coordinator as designated in section 196-3. [DBEDT Director]
''Permit mean any approval, no matter the nomenclature, necessary for siting, development, construction, or operation of a renewable energy facility ... including ... state land use reclassification ... county development, community, or community development plan amendment ... state conservation district use permit ... a state special permit for an agricultural or rural district ... a special management area permit ... a shoreline variance ...
''Renewable Energy'' has the same meaning as the term is defined under section 269-91.
[HRS 269-91: ''Renewable energy" means energy generated or produced utilizing the following sources: ... Wind ... sun ... Falling water ... Biogas ... Geothermal ... Ocean water, currents and waves ... Biomass ... Biofuels]
''Renewable energy facility'' or ''facility'' means a facility located in the State that is planned to have the capacity to produce from renewable energy at least two hundred megawatts of electricity.
The term includes any of the following associated with the facility: ... the land parcel on which the facility is situated ... any renewable energy production structure or equipment ... any energy transmission line from the facility to a public utility's electric distribution system ... any on-site building ...
The coordinator [DBEDT Director] shall have the power and authority, which shall be liberally construed, necessary to implement and further that renewable energy policies ...
the coordinator shall have the power and authority, as provided under this Chapter, to receive, accept, review, coordinate and approve all applications for Permits necessary for the development of a renewable energy facility on an expedited basis.
The coordinator shall coordinate and process Permits concurrently, and shall not take longer than six months following receipt of a completed consolidated application to complete the review and approval of any such application and all Permits relating thereto, subject only to final acceptance of an environmental assessment and/or environmental impact statement as may be required under Chapter 343.
Within ten days following receipt of an application or supplement thereto, the coordinator shall give written notice to the applicant as to ... any deficiencies relating thereto ... identify all state and county permits applicable ...
the coordinator ... shall determine the terms and conditions to be imposed on the state permits that are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare to the extent practicable without unduly delaying, impairing or frustrating the purpose, policies and goals of this chapter.
The terms and conditions may require the applicant to improve off-site infrastructure or establish measures to mitigate significant adverse environmental effects, but only to the extent directly caused by the applicant's renewable energy facility.
The coordinator shall make the determination for all terms and conditions of all required state permits no later than sixty days after receipt of a completed consolidated application; provided that, if an approval for a federal permit or delegated environmental permit, or acceptance of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, is prerequisite to the approval of a state permit required for the facility, the coordinator's determination shall be made, but its effectiveness shall be conditioned upon approval of the federal permit, delegated environmental permit and/or acceptance of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, as applicable.
If, within forty-five days of receipt of a recommendation from the coordinator, a county agency does not approve the county permit, either because of rejection or inaction, the permit with the terms and conditions recommended by the coordinator shall be deemed approved on the forty-sixth day without necessity of further action by the county agency or coordinator. ... Notwithstanding the action by the coordinator on a county permit ... the relevant county agency shall be responsible for monitoring and enforcing the terms and conditions of the permit.
To accomplish the concurrent review, the coordinator shall, at the applicant's request, consent to receipt and review of portions of an environmental impact statement before its completion.
The coordinator shall establish and implement a system to coordinate and concurrently process the review and approval by the public utilities commission of any power purchase agreement
Judicial review of dispute regarding approval process; inapplicability of contested case procedures. (a) Any person aggrieved by the approval of a state or county permit or the terms and condition of any approved permit may file an action for relief in the circuit court ... for the purposes of bringing judicial action under this subsection, the term ''person aggrieved'' shall include the applicant and any state or county agency, office, council or other government agency which has decision making authority related to the approved permit. Other parties, pursuant to court action, may be adjudged aggrieved. (b) The inapplicability of the use of contested case procedures pursuant to chapter 91 in the approval of any state or county permit pursuant to this chapter shall not be grounds for any judicial appeal.
Superiority of chapter over conflicting state or county law. The provisions of this chapter shall supersede any conflicting state or county law.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Make a phone call
The Conference Committee Members for the House are
Co-Chair Mina Morita (586-8435; fax 586-8437; toll free 274-3141 + 68435)
Co-Chair Ken Ito (586-8470)
Co-Chair Robert Herkes (586-8400; fax 586-8404; toll free 974-4000 + 68400)
Co-Chair Marcus Oshiro (586-6200; fax 586-6201)
Member Colleen Meyer (586-8540; fax 586-8544).
The Conference Committee Members for the Senate are
Chair Ron Menor (586-6740; fax 586-6829)
Co-Chair Clayton Hee (586-7330; Fax 586-7334)
Co-Chair Lorraine Inouye (586-7335; Fax 586-7339; toll free 974-4000 + 67335)
Co-Chair Russ Kokubun (586-6760 ; Fax 586-6689; toll free 974-4000 + 66760)
Co-Chair Roz Baker (586-6070; fax 586-6071; toll free 984-2400 + 66070)
Gordon Trimble (586-7100; fax 808-586-7109)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
