“SUBSTANTIAL DISAGREEMENTS CURRENTLY EXIST,” Hawai`i County said in its call to the state Public Utilities Commission for an evidentiary hearing regarding the proposed contract between `Aina Koa Pono and the electric utilities. `Aina Koa Pono’s plans are to grow and harvest feedstock on lands between Pahala and Na`alehu to produce biofuel at a refinery above Pahala. “Specifically, the written testimonies and answers to our information requests of the Hawaiian Electric Company and the Hawai`i Electric Light Company, (collectively the ‘HEl Companies’), the Consumer Advocate, their consultants and the Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism have not sufficiently addressed issues the county raised concerning direct and indirect effects if the proposed contract was approved. Additionally, we find that the docket record has not been properly developed, and therefore a sound and thorough decision will not be reasonably attainable by the Commission. As a result, we remain in opposition to the proposed contract.” The county lists several reasons why it considers the contract not “reasonable and consistent with the public interest: The Energy-mass-balance has not been adequately proven; The proposed technology as well as scale-up of this technology is unproven; The agricultural productivity claims of the developers/promoters seems untenable; The proposed contract is high-priced and long-term, locking in the majority of power-generation biodiesel supply for the next 20 years; The proposed contract further increases electricity prices in the State of Hawai`i which are already amongst the highest in the United States resulting in: Negative effects on the Islands’ economies; Limiting business development and retention; Further limiting our island resident’s disposable income that could be better devoted to their children’s education or general well-being of the family; and Finally, disproportionately distressing our low-income/fixed-income residents, as well as decreasing their ability to pay for basic necessities. The Island of Hawai`i already has achieved forty to fifty percent renewable generation and should be devoting its limited resources/time to lowering electricity prices; At forty to fifty percent renewable energy generation already on our Island and rates so high, we should be pursuing more cost-effective solutions like more geothermal, wind, solar, even hydro-electric generation, that can dramatically lower customer bills and help free up disposable incomes to reinvigorate our Island economy (and attract future business), as well as helping education, tourism, astronomy and other important or key sectors of our diversifying economy; The county believes that future efforts should be directed toward lowering electricity prices. Increasing efficiency as well as focusing more on transportation-solutions which we believe has greater economic-development potential than this proposed project; The proposed biofuels production facility will be located on our Island in the remote town of Pahala. The HEl Companies’ claims and analyses directed toward economic development, environmental impacts, positive and negative externalities, community impacts of this project are not well developed and remain unproven by the promoters; Pahala farmers have indicated interest for some of this agricultural land that may prove more economically beneficial for them and ensures their desired quality-of-life is in their control; The county remains convinced that other renewable energy projects, already proven on this island, will have more beneficial impacts in the future such as more wind, hydro, solar, geothermal and storages solutions (as well as efficiency measures); Cost-effective on-island biofuel renewable projects in transportation (and power-generation) are already available or currently under development at market prices; Cost-effective biofuels projects both on the mainland and on-island are being developed with business models that will enable market pricing; The parties who are in favor of this contract have not proven this contract is beneficial to the electric ratepayer, and; A majority of the public comments and testimony are in opposition to this contract. “If the Commission is in agreement, then the county would request that this application be denied. However, if the Commission is still undecided, the county reaffirms its position, that we have not been proffered appropriate or adequate responses to our information requests and must seek a means to compel parties to provide that information. Accordingly, at this time, only an evidentiary hearing will allow the county to compel these parties to provide that information so that the Commission can make a well informed decision.” The county proposed the following evidentiary hearing schedule: Prehearing Motions – Nov. 15; Prehearing Conference – Dec. 3; Evidentiary Hearing – week of Dec. 8. This and other testimony is available at puc.hawaii.gov. Docket number is 2012-0185.
Posted on: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 01:35:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015