There’s a lot of behind the scenes arm wrestling in the Public Utility Commission’s proceedings that will determine the future of Hawaiian Electric’s net metering program, the basic system that has been in place to compensate the owners of rooftop solar systems.

It’s all part of a PUC docket, “2014-0192 INSTITUTING A PROCEEDING TO INVESTIGATE DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCE POLICIES.”

Click on that link and you’ll see a list of the parties to the proceedings, and a list of all the documents submitted so far.

In early July, HECO filed a motion to eject The Alliance for Solar Choice, an industry group made up of large solar companies, from the proceedings.

TASC was earlier approved as one of a dozen intervenors in the proceedings, along with the principal parties, the utilities and the Consumer Advocate.

HECO basically accuses the solar lobby of agreeing to work collaboratively towards an agreed upon framework going forward, but instead took its case to the public through an advertising and public relations campaign aimed at improperly pressuring the commission in its decision on the issue.

The HECO motion fills 26 pages, and has lots of details.

When I interviewed former PUC chair Mina Morita last week, she echoed the displeasure at TASC’s actions (see “Ian Lind: Former PUC Chair Speaks Out Against Solar Subsidies“).

Morita accuses the solar advocates of politicizing energy policy at a very delicate time in which rapid technological change, coupled with dramatic changes in energy pricing, have ratcheted up the risks for Hawaii’s utilities and the public in making decisions that will reverberate for decades.

“These kinds of decisions cannot be political decisions,” Morita said, “because this is a central service that the whole economy depends on, and we can’t afford major failure of this important infrastructure.”

“We’re in a precarious situation here,” she said. “I hate the cliches, but failure is not an option.”

I recommend the column, since Morita is one of those key figures, long an environmental favorite, a key advocate on energy issues, including prior support of net metering, and now going public after 4 years as head of the PUC.

When you’re done with that, you can check TASC’s response, filed by the group’s Oakland-based attorney.

TASC denies violating any orders or procedures of the commission, and argues that it’s public lobbying on the issues is simply protected First Amendment activity.

The commission has yet to rule on the motion to revoke TASC’s status as an intervenor.

I’m a bit puzzled now that Governor David Ige and several state agencies have come out in opposition to the NextEra-Hawaiian Electric merger.

The solar industry had been taking the lead in opposing the deal, and has now been joined by the state.

The Star-Advertiser reported on the governor’s stance this morning (“Ige opposes NextEra deal“).

Ige signed into law last month a bill that sets a goal of 100 percent of the state’s electric power coming from renewable energy sources by 2045. The governor said Monday he is not convinced NextEra is the company to get the state there.

“We are committed to a 100 percent renewable future, standing alone among the 50 states in the nation in that action. We need an electric company that sees Hawaii as the center of its work and the opportunity we represent as one of the greatest moments in history for any utility,” Ige said. “We have not seen that in this proposal.”

NextEra spokesman Rob Gould, reached late Monday on the East Coast, said the company could not immediately comment on Ige’s stance.

NextEra said last month the state’s 2045 goal “may prove to be very aggressive.”

That answer was unacceptable for the state.

And Henry Curtis (Ililani Media) quoted extensively this morning from a filing by the Office of State Planning

“The Office of Planning understands that Applicant Hawaiian Electric Companies are very important to the State of Hawai?i, not only in the area of energy, but also to areas such as the economy, labor, employment, governance, and the community. The Hawaiian Electric Companies have been intertwined with the entire fabric of Hawai?i for well over a century. The Hawaiian Electric Companies have had a monopoly in supplying power to approximately 90% of our island state, occupying a special and unique role in Hawai?i. And being a company in such a circumstance, comes with high expectations from the State and its residents in a variety of areas, including but not limited to the aforementioned areas.

Therefore, when a significant shift occurs to a company of great importance to Hawai?i, such as the Proposed Transaction, it triggers not only the typical rate impact analysis, but also an impacts analysis that is not usually addressed by the PUC. In the instant docket, consistent with its statutory role in providing recommendations to state agencies on conflicts between the Hawai?i State Plan and state programs, the Office of Planning strongly recommends that the PUC consider the issues covered by the Office of Planning in its review of the Proposed Transaction. See HRS § 226-53(1).”

“For the most part, the Applicants have focused on the “business” side of the Proposed Transaction, although as evident from the Office of Planning’s testimony of witness Mr. Hempling, questions remain that need to be considered and resolved, before approval of the Proposed Transaction is issued by the PUC.

Likewise, on the “societal” side of the Proposed Transaction, there remain questions or uncertainty on issues such as commitments to corporate giving, impacts to employees/employment/labor, corporate governance and community values.

A couple of things strike me.

First, there’s the “100% renewables” law. NextEra calls it “very aggressive,” a characterization that the state reportedly deems “unacceptable.”

But, quite honestly, it is aggressive, don’t you think? It’s the first such policy in the country, which somewhat by definition makes it aggressive in comparison to other jurisdictions. It depends on lots of factors outside the control of the utility or the state, including dramatic progress in battery technology or other technologies to even out the flow of solar, wind, and the intermittent energy sources. Most of those can’t be legislated, especially not at the state level.

Then there’s the question of cost. It is going to cost a lot to upgrade the grid to accommodate increasingly higher levels of renewable and intermittent power if we’re to have any hope of reaching the 100% goal.

And one thing we’ve learned in the discussion since the proposed merger was announced is that while Hawaiian Electric has been a big company in our small state, it is actually a small utility, and a relatively small player in the national financial world.

The company’s chairman has characterized HEI as a collection of small, independent utilities, which results in higher borrowing costs than a larger utility with deeper pockets would incur.

So how will blocking the NextEra merger and keeping Hawaiian Electric as a local, independent company solve the financial equation? Will the state step in to provide the deep pockets and support for the necessary debt? I doubt it. Can stockholders be forced to bear the cost? Theoretically, yes, but it would drive down the value of HEI shares and create a further drag on HEI’s access to financial markets.

So getting from here to the desired future without the ability to access the deep pockets of a utility giant like NextEra is a big problem that will remain if this merger is turned down.

And then there are those social impacts of Hawaiian Electric that are highlighted by the Office of State Planning. Before the merger, these were seen, more often than not, as problems associated with the company’s monopoly position, and the power it derived from its impact on employment and politics, its interlocks with other parts of the local power structure, were widely considered problematic by many of the same interests that now oppose the merger with NextEra.

The rest of our economy has pretty much been taken over and integrated into the wide world of corporate ownership and finance. Local media? Out of state owners. Hotels? National and international owners. Retail chains? Largely national ownership. The days of the locally owned “Big Five” are long gone, and there really isn’t much nostalgia for those old days. So why the sudden outspoke fear that out of state ownership of the local utility will be a game changer, while outside ownership of other major parts of our island life now goes without comment?

In the end, what energy future does the state really want? And if the NextEra merger is turned down, how will that propel us towards that preferred future?

I, for one, am interested in seeing the answers to that question.