Should you be interested, here’s a link to a recent 30-minute ThinkTech Hawaii segment in which I appeared with co-hosts Jay Fidell and Marco Mangelsdorf.
I was invited to be part of the program after my two recent posts concerning Hu Honua.
You may not hear any breaking news, but you may find it of interest.
Judging from recent online comments with reference to the protests over the latest Na Pua Makani wind farm project in Kahuku, there’s a segment of the public that perceives the wind energy project as just another corporate power grab representing a large national corporation putting its own interests ahead of the community.
It seems to me that this kind of general rejection of the project fails to appreciate the actual nature of the problem we’re facing.
So I have to wonder: How did wind power, one of our few available alternatives to the continued use of fossil fuels and the adverse climate changes they have wrought, go from being seen as part of the solution to global warming and instead vilified as an essential expression of corporate domination?
For years, Hawaii has been burdened by the highest electricity rates in the country, due in large part to our isolation and our almost total reliance on imported fossil fuel.
And with the impacts of climate change highlighted the costs of continued reliance on fossil fuels, the state has been pushing to ramp up its investments in clean and renewable power sources, including solar, wind, and geothermal.
So it was a big deal when Hawaii became the first state in the country to pass a law with a firm timetable for eliminating the use of fossil fuel to produce electricity.
Here’s how a press release from the Blue Planet Foundation put it at the time (June 2015).
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/historic-hawaii-enacts-nations-first-100-renewable-energy-requirement-300097583.html
Hawaii enacted a law this week that requires all of the state’s electricity to be produced from renewable energy sources no later than 2045. The new policy, Act 97, makes Hawaii the first state in the nation to adopt a 100 percent renewable requirement, further solidifying Hawaii’s role as a global clean energy leader.How did the solution to the continued use of fossil fuels become seen as simply part of a corporate, profit-making conspiracy?
“Hawaii is making history, not only for the islands, but for the planet,” said Jeff Mikulina, Executive Director of the Blue Planet Foundation. “We are making a promise to future generations that their lives will be powered not by climate-changing fossil fuel, but by clean, local, and sustainable sources of energy.”
Blue Planet Foundation, whose mission is to clear the path for 100% clean energy, drafted the legislation and led the grassroots campaign to pass the bill, which included channeling the support of over 500 students statewide in the form of letters and illustrations delivered to lawmakers. The organization praised both the Governor and legislative leaders for their resolve in establishing the new target.
According to Pacific Business News: “As of 2018, Hawaii’s energy use consisted of 61.3% petroleum, 11.9% coal, 11.2% utility and small-scale solar, 4.9% wind, 2.9% bioenergy, and 2.8% biomass.”
We’ve got a long way to go to meet the state’s 100% renewable goal within 25 years. Wind power is almost necessarily part of the solution, at least with the current state of available technology. And mining the wind, like drilling for oil, requires going to where the resource is found.
Kahuku is one of those places.
So instead of the good community versus the greedy corporate powers, we’ve got the positive goal of reducing fossil fuels versus the equally positive goal of protecting a rural neighborhood from carrying an unfair share of the negative effects of the state’s energy goal.
I’ll be back to this subject, hopefully tomorrow, with more thoughts on this sticky issue.
I have a simple recommendation. If you ever find yourself wondering what Hawaii was like in the “old” days and how it changed over time, an extremely useful reference is Robert Schmidt’s “Historical Statistics of Hawaii.”
Schmidt compiled the book when he was serving at state statistician. The book has 26 chapters covering different aspects of the community and economy, each with an introduction that surveys the history of the collection of data on that particular subject. It’s really a treasure trove of fascinating bits and pieces of history, although you’ll have to get comfortable looking at data presented in table form.
This is a huge printed book, running nearly 700 oversize pages. I once found a used copy in a thrift shop, and used hardcover copies can be found for about $25 from Amazon or the independent bookstores that sell via Alibris.com.
This weekend I was looking for data to illustrate the changes in post-WWII Hawaii. I ended up using data showing how the population shifted from rural to urban areas from the 1800s through to the late 1960s, and showed how the number of private cars doubled between 1945 and 1950, and then doubled again by 1962. Another chart that I used traced the changes in retail sales as both downtown Honolulu and small mom & pop stores were overtaken and overshadowed by Ala Moana Center, Kahala Mall, and other regional malls during the 1950s and 1960s.
In any case, an extremely useful and interesting resources.
But here’s the big hint. It’s also available for free as a 22MB pdf file from the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism.
I’ve downloaded a copy and filed it for quick future reference.
You might want to do the same.
Thanks to Henry Curtis (ililani.media) for his partial transcription from oral arguments before the Hawaii Supreme Court in Life of the Land’s challenge to a power purchase agreement between Hawaii Electric (HELCO) and Hu Honua, which was approved by the Public Utilities Commission in 2017.
One key issue in the case case revolves around the Public Utilities Commission’s interpretation of a state law requiring 100% renewable energy by the year 2045.
The provision at issue provides:
HRS §269-6b: “In making determinations of the reasonableness of the costs of utility system capital improvements and operations, the commission shall explicitly consider… greenhouse gas emissions.”
The state’s position appears to be that state law lists biomass as a renewable energy source, and requires shifting away from fossil fuels towards renewable sources. The PUC appears to have assumed that the requirement to “explicitly consider…greenhouse gas emissions” is met “by definition” in the case of a biomass project, and therefore needs no further exploration.
The transcript includes the back and forth between justices and the attorney representing the PUC, Clyde Wadsworth. There are a number of questions posed by the justices which make for interesting reading.
But I think this section of the transcript captures the problem. Of course, questions during oral arguments are a long way from a Supreme Court ruling. But they seem to be focusing in on a problem with the state’s position.
Chief Justice Recktenwald: Mr. Wadsworth, I want to be sure I understand your position. So I`m reading from page 53 of the order where the commission notes Life of the Land is not in favor of commission approval but focuses rational on concerns outside of the scope of its limited participation, namely climate change and comparative pricing with other forms of energy. So, is it the PUC`s argument that state law has already made its judgement that biomass is an appropriate alternative or a renewable energy source, and that if a project is utilizing biomass, and the effects of biomass versus oil consumption or coal use are analyzed, that there is no responsibility or need to assess the impacts of biomass versus perhaps other alternatives, like solar, conservation, or wind. Because that`s what I think I`m hearing you say.I want to be sure I understand your argument.
Solicitor General Wadsworth: I think the argument is somewhat nuanced. More nuanced than that your honor. I mean, certainly the state policy here is to replace fossil fuels with biomass and other renewable energy resources, and the purpose of 269-6b was to ensure that renewable energy plants weren`t disadvantaged by their potentially higher costs as compared to fossil fuel plants by requiring the PUC to take into account the hidden costs of fossil fuel plants such as greenhouse gas emissions. So that`s what their charge is. To respond to the specific statement that is in the decision and order. I think that the commission was frustrated that Life of the Land didn`t tie its general concerns about climate change to the projects displacement of fossil fuels and the commission`s mandate to consider the effect of the state`s reliance on fossil fuels on greenhouse gas emissions and regardless of how the commission characterized Life of the Land`s concerns, the decision and order did, in fact, consider how the project would displace fossil fuel generation and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Associate Justice McKenna: But it seems like, you’re arguing two separate things, there`s fossil fuels and then there’s greenhouse gas emissions. Just based on the agricultural, the razing, and it seems to me that there`s an assumption that one tree cut one tree grown its neutral you know but there appear to be issues with that, right?
Solicitor General Wadsworth: And I see that my time is up your honor, but I just want to emphasize, that the state legislature though has taken a position on this, and the position is.
Associate Justice Pollack: The statute is apparently trumped by something else? I mean, the Chief Justice asked you, whether or not greenhouse gas emissions must be considered by the PUC when it makes these kinds of decisions. Does it have to make findings? Does it have to consider?
Solicitor General Wadsworth: It does.
Associate Justice Pollack: Even if its biomass.
Solicitor General Wadsworth: It does, by having to show that fossil fuels would be displaced by renewable energy.
Associate Justice Pollack: So we should read into the statute, where it says greenhouse gas emissions, except if the greenhouse gas emissions results from biomass.
Solicitor General Wadsworth: No. I`m not suggesting that reading your honor. The premise of state law is that fossil fuels are linked to greenhouse gases emissions.
If you displace fossil fuels you displace greenhouse gas emissions.Chief Justice Recktenwald: My question to you is, end of discussion? Or do you need to look at other impacts of the biomass. Do you have to look at the bigger picture of how much it’s going to impact the environment? Do you need to compare it to other sources?
Solicitor General Wadsworth: I think, based on the statute, that is the end to the discussion.
This is another classic example showing that passing a law to ensure a public good is perhaps necessary, but not sufficient. Staying engaged as that law is interpreted and implemented is necessary to ensure that original public good is really served.
Thanks to Henry and Life of the Land for staying engaged!
A recording of the complete oral arguments before the court is available on the judiciary’s website.