Tag Archives: HECO

‘Behind the Plug & Beyond the Barrel’

Richard Ha writes:

I spoke on behalf of the Big Island Community Coalition (BICC) at the Hawai‘i Island Renewable Energy Solutions Summit 2014 on April 30th, which was titled “Behind the Plug and Beyond the Barrel," and here's what I said: 

BICC mission

Good morning. Thanks for the introduction. I will use just this one slide, and you can read our mission statement on it, which is to lower the cost of electricity. “To make Big Island electricity rates the lowest in the state by emphasizing the use of local resources.”

I would like to spend some time talking about who makes up the BICC.

Dave DeLuz, Jr. – President of Big Island Toyota.

John Dill – Contractors Association, and Chair of the Ethics Commission

Rockne Freitas – Former Chancellor Hawai‘i Community College

Michelle Galimba – Rancher, Board of Agriculture

Richard Ha – Farmer

Wallace Ishibashi – Royal Order of Kamehameha, DHHL Commissioner

Kuulei Kealoha Cooper- Trustee, Jimmy Kealoha and Miulan Kealoha Trust.

Noe Kalipi – Former staffer for Sen Akaka, helped write the Akaka Bill, energy consultant

Kai'u Kimura- Executive Director of ‘Imiloa.

Bobby Lindsey – OHA Trustee

Monty Richards – Kahua Ranch

Marcia Sakai – Vice Chancellor for Administrative Affairs, former Dean of UH Hilo, College of Business

Bill Walter- President of Shipman, Ltd., which is the largest landowner in Puna.

These folks are all operating in their private capacities. I'm chair of the BICC, and the only person from Hawai‘i to have attended five Peak Oil conferences. I've visited Iceland and the Philippines with Mayor Kenoi's exploratory group.

As you can imagine, the BICC has strong support all across political parties and socioeconomic strata. People get it in five minutes.

Oil and gas are finite resources, and prices will rise.  One note about natural gas: the decline rate of the average gas well is very high. Ninety percent of the production comes out in five years. This is worrisome.

Hawai‘i Island relies on oil for sixty percent of its electricity generation; the U.S. mainland only two percent.

As the price of oil rises, our food manufacturers and producers become less competitive, as we all know. Food security involves farmers farming. And if the farmers make money, the farmers will farm.

What can we do?  By driving the cost of electricity down, the Big Island can have a competitive edge to the rest of the world.

Since rising electricity rates act like a giant regressive tax, lowering electricity rates would do just the opposite. And since two-thirds of the economy is made up of consumer spending, this would be like "trickle up" economics. If the rubbah slippah folks had extra money, they would spend and everyone would benefit.

 The lowest-hanging fruit:

1. Geothermal. Allows us to dodge the finite resource bullet. It is the lowest-cost base power. The Big Island will be over the hot spot for 500,000 to a million years.

2. We throw away many lots of MW of electricity every night. Hu Honua will probably throw away 10 MW for ten hours every night. PGV, maybe 7 MW for ten hours.

3. Wind, too.

Maybe HELCO will allow us to move the excess electricity free. They don't make any money on the throwaway power now, anyway. What if we used it for something that won't compete with them? Then people could bid for the excess, throwaway power for hydrogen fueling stations, to make ammonia fertilizer, and to attract data centers. Hawaii could become the renewable energy capital of the world. People would love to come here and look at that. As airline ticket costs rise, the walk around cost in Hawai‘i would not.

The BICC call for lowering electricity costs could leave future generations a better Hawai‘i.  And that is what we all want.

My Star-Advertiser Op-Ed: Big Island Biofuels Project Would Raise Oahu’s Electric Rates

My Op-Ed article on the Aina Koa Pono situation, and how it would raise electricity rates for O’ahu residents (though the project is on the Big Island), ran in yesterday’s Star-Advertiser. Here it is in full:

***

The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is considering approving
a contract between Hawai‘i Island’s HECO-owned utility (HELCO) and a partnership known as Aina Koa Pono (AKP). Its decision is expected within the next several weeks.

Why should rate payers on O‘ahu care about this proposed
contract?

Because if approved, O‘ahu residents would pay about 90
percent of the cost – even though the very expensive fuel would only be used on the Big Island.

The contract between HELCO and AKP calls for HELCO (and you) to purchase fuel from AKP at about $200/barrel. Today, a barrel of oil costs about half that: $107.  If this contract is approved, there will be a surcharge, to cover the difference, on your monthly electricity bill.

Furthermore, note that whenever oil has reached about $120/barrel, world economies have slowed precipitously. Many have gone into recession. This tells us that there is a natural economic “stop” in place that keeps oil from getting anywhere near $200/barrel.

And yet HELCO/HECO is trying to guarantee AKP a fixed price
of $200/barrel.

While a discussion of using renewable energy, rather than
primarily buying foreign oil, is warranted, when the cost of those renewables is so unrealistically high that any buyer would look for other alternatives, then that discussion has reached the point of absurdity.

What lower-cost alternatives exist for the Island of Hawai‘i?

  • The Island has significant geothermal resources at the equivalent price of $57/barrel. Right now, HELCO purchases only about 70 percent of the geothermal power available, meaning there is more geothermal available at well below the equivalent of $200/barrel.
  • HELCO currently purchases power from biofuel and hydroelectric sources that make a reasonable profit at today’s prices, and don’t ask for $200/barrel. Additional power plants are asking to come on line at today’s prices.
  • HECO and HELCO currently buy solar power at prices well below the equivalent of $200/barrel (in fact, from what we can tell, at less than half that price).
  • HECO and HELCO buy wind-generated power for far less than $200/barrel, with more potential sellers lining up to sell to them.

AKP’s plan has technical issues, as well. The process AKP plans to use has never been proven at the scale they propose; the proposed
yield of source material is many times more than ever grown anywhere. There are also cultural and environmental issues.

Finally, you might ask why O‘ahu rate payers should pay for power consumed by rate payers on another island. GOOD QUESTION.

The simple answer is that if rate payers on the Island of
Hawai‘i had to bear the burden, there is no way this could be approved. That kind of tells the whole story right there, doesn’t it?

We suggest you write to the PUC if you oppose this contract:
hawaii.puc@hawaii.gov. You can also contact your State and County legislators and your Mayor.

Richard Ha, owner of Hamakua Springs Country Farms,
submitted this on behalf of the Big Island Community Coalition, of which he is a founding member. Other founding members include Dave DeLuz Jr., John E.K. Dill, Rockne Freitas, Wallace Ishibashi, Ku‘ulei Kealoha Cooper, Noelani Kalipi, Ka‘iu Kimura, Robert Lindsey, H.M. “Monty” Richards, Marcia Sakai, Lehua Veincent and Bill Walter. All operate as individuals and do not represent others. The Big Island Community Coalition (BICC) works primarily with cost issues on the Island of Hawai‘i, where residents pay about 25 percent more for electricity than do O‘ahu rate payers.

###

How To Guarantee Economic Disaster: AKP

Richard Ha writes:

We all admire Mark Dunkerley, President and CEO of Hawaiian Airlines, and wish Hawaiian Airlines the best.

From Pacific Business News:

Speaking to a room of movers and shakers from Hawaii’s commercial real estate industry at the NAIOP Hawaii
Real Estate Symposium Friday at the Hawaii Convention Center, Dunkerley noted that without new product, such as hotels, tourists will eventually go elsewhere for their vacations.

Dunkerely says that Hawaiian Airlines, a subsidiary of Hawaiian Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: HA) is doing its part by investing $11 billion in a “superior fleet.”

But Dunkerley and Hawaiian Airlines cannot do everything by themselves to save Hawai‘i.

It certainly won’t help if we increase the cost of doing business in Hawai‘i.

The Consumer Advocate is suggesting that O‘ahu (electric) rate payers subsidize the $200/barrel cost of biofuel proposed to be produced by Aina Koa Pono (AKP) in Ka‘u on the Big Island.

From the PUC Docket 2012-0185:

Q. HELCO AND HECO RECOMMEND THAT THE COST DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE BIODIESEL AND THE FOSSIL FUEL THE BIODIESEL REPLACES SHOULD BE
SPREAD ACROSS BOTH HELCO AND HECO
 RATEPAYERS. IN YOUR OPINION, IS THIS JUST AND REASONABLE?

The Consumer Advocate responds:

A. No. In my opinion, the entire cost premium differential should be borne by HECO ratepayers. I refer to it as a cost premium, because the price of biofuel is currently higher than the price of petroleum diesel.

O‘ahu hotels already pay high electricity costs. Let’s not price them out of the market. This does not help our tourism industry, Hawaiian Airlines or us.

For Big Islanders, our worst fear is that AKP is approved by the Public Utilities Commission. If that were to happen, we would be locked into a 20-year contract that would preclude our selecting lower cost alternatives for 1/3 of our base power electricity use.

An oil price of $200/barrel will be very damaging to the airline industry, as well as to our tourism industry.

We don’t need to be paying for $200/barrel biofuel now when we don’t have to.

The Energy Information Agency (EIA) projects oil will cost less than $150/barrel in their reference rate case during the 20-year period of the potential AKP contract.

Yet HECO chose to use the EIA’s highest rate scenario of $200/barrel.

Screen Shot 2013-04-29 at 7.16.46 PM

What if they are wrong?

Why are we pursuing this alternative?  It’s like we are choosing to go over the cliff now, in order to maybe prevent going over the cliff
later.

Why do we want to be first in the world to achieve cellulosic biofuel? There is a 90 percent chance of failure! It would be far smarter to copy someone else who is the first in the world. Then there would be a 90 percent chance of success.

• Are we pursuing this to stimulate economic activity? That’s just taking out of one pocket to put into another, and causing electricity rates to rise as we do it.

A rising electricity price acts like a giant regressive tax. Folks who can afford to do so leave the grid. And those who cannot leave, pay even more.

Two-thirds of our economy is made up of consumer spending. If folks had discretionary income, they would spend it, businesses would hire and people would have jobs.

The opposite is what’s happening now.

• Or are we pursuing AKP to better the lives of future generations? This proposal worsens the prospects for future generations.

We cannot let AKP pass. It would be a disaster for our economy for the next 20 years and beyond.

We Need More People With Cutting-Edge Energy Knowledge!

Richard Ha writes:

Hawai‘i should be sending more people to the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) conference. The folks at ASPO are on the leading edge of energy data interpretation. We need more people with cutting -edge energy knowledge.

aspo logo

For example, for several years now ASPO folks have been utilizing Energy Return on Investment (EROI) as a tool to evaluate energy
options.

If HECO had understood the concept and its parameters, it
may not have committed to Aina Koa Pono’s biofuel project so wholeheartedly.

Biofuels, in general, have very low EROI ratios (net energy). It takes a ratioof 3 to 1 just to maintain society’s petroleum infrastructure. Biofuels, except for cane ethanol, are lower than 2 to 1.

If we can’t make money in Hawai‘i now with cane ethanol, what makes us think we can do cellulosic biofuels, which are more costly and more difficult?

Despite spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, there are zero commercial competitive cellulosic biofuels in production
today. Zero. We wish AKP well, but it should use its own money, not that of the rate payers.

The shale oil and shale gas story is probably only be an interim solution. Aubrey McClendon, the fracking cheerleader of Chesapeake Energy, has been removed as its Chairman and will soon resign as CEO. The ASPO folks have known for several years that shale oil and gas is a bunch of financial smoke and mirrors.

When HECO responded to Consumer Advocate questions about how it justified its pricing, the utility used the Energy Information Agency (EIA) 2012 AEO report’s high-case scenario for its long-term forecast.

But the EIA’s short-term forecast, just a couple of weeks ago, estimates the 2014 price of oil at $101/barrel – while HECO estimates that oil will cost $180/barrel in 2015. The rate payer wouldn’t care about this if they didn’t have to subsidize the biofuels at $200/barrel.

Putting a secret $200/barrel biofuel surcharge on rate payers, and then telling them, “Trust us, this won’t hurt much” – while raising the pay of top executives – stands in sharp contrast to the CEO of Japan Airlines, who insists on being treated exactly like his workers. Watch that short (2:20) video for a very different approach than we are used to. Really interesting.

Amending HB 106: ‘Let’s Fix It”

Richard Ha writes:

I sent in testimony, on behalf of the Big Island Community Coalition, regarding HB 106, draft 1. This bill contemplates repealing Act 97 (geothermal subzones, etc.).

We should keep the good parts of this bill and add parts that make it better. We need balance as we take care of everyone’s needs. This is about all of us, not just a few of us.

Here’s my testimony:

To the Water & Land committee

Aloha Chair Evans and Vice Chair Lowen,

The BICC is very strongly in favor of amending this bill.

There are good things in this bill; let’s leverage that. We are strongly against repealing it in its entirety.

No question: home rule should be addressed. This was an unfortunate oversight the last time around. Let’s fix it.

The heart of the bill that must be kept is the part that allows geothermal exploration and development in various land use designations.  The geothermal resource exists where it exists, not where we want it to exist. So we need a larger area to explore, not less. By having more choices we can get further away from populated areas. And we can increase our chances of success. The permitting process gives the necessary checks and balances to protect the people.

The essential problem we must solve is how to protect the people from rising oil prices. Repealing Act 97 in its entirety will raise our electricity prices.

The petroleum era is less than 150 years old. Oil is a finite resource and we are observing increasing oil prices. Oil price has quadrupled in the last 10 years. In contrast, the Big Island will be over the “hot spot” for 500,000 to a million years.

Geothermal-generated electricity is less than half the cost of oil-generated electricity. And it will be stable for 500,000 years.

The Big Island’s electricity costs have been 25 percent higher than O‘ahu’s for as long as anyone can remember. The Big Island Community Coalition is a grass roots organization that was formed to drive the cost of electricity on the Big Island down.

One of the BICC members did a cost analysis of a local school district’s 12 month electricity bills – generally 2012. Their costs (total of all schools involved) averaged $115,900/month.

At O‘ahu’s rates, those costs would be $115,900/1.25 = $92,700. That’s a savings of $23,200/month or $278,400/year.

If we figure $70,000/year pay for a teacher, the difference is four teachers for the district.

Because of these kinds of things, the BICC said enough was enough.  People turned out at the PUC hearings, and consequently the governor issued a press release saying that HECO/HELCO had withdrawn its proposed 4.2 percent rate hike.

No one has ever told us: “We disagree with you; we want higher electricity rates.”

The members of the BICC are Dave DeLuz, Jr., John E.K. Dill, Rockne Freitas, Michelle Galimba, Richard Ha, Wallace Ishibashi, Ku‘ulei Kealoha Cooper, D. Noelani Kalipi, Ka‘iu Kimura, Robert Lindsey, H.M. “Monty” Richards, Marcia Sakai, Kumu Lehua Veincent and William Walter.

Rising electricity rates act like a regressive tax, but worse. As electricity prices rise, folks who can afford to get off the grid will do so. Those who cannot leave, the rubbah slippah folks, will be left to pay for the grid.

If we can achieve low-cost, stable electricity, trickle-up economics can result. If the rubbah slippah folks have money to spend, they will spend. Then businesses will be able to hire, and then we won’t have to send our children away to find jobs.

There is a lot at stake here.

Good luck.

Aloha,

Richard Ha
Cell 960-1057

I’ve been to five Association for the Study of Peak Oil conferences. I was co-chair of the Geothermal Working Group authorized by SCR99, and sit on the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI) steering committee and the State Board of Agriculture. I’ve been to Iceland to see geothermal in operation, and I was part of the Big Island delegation that toured geothermal resources in the Philippines.

At Hamakua Springs we farm 600 fee simple acres of diversified crops. I do an Ag and energy blog at hahaha.hamakuasprings.com.

Let’s Fight Rising Electric Rates, Not Teachers

Richard Ha writes:

Today we find ourselves fighting against our teachers. But it’s rising electricity costs that is putting the pressure on school budgets.

We should be fighting against rising electricity rates, not our teachers.

The main problem with the proposed HECO/Aina Koa Pono (AKP) biofuel project is that its $200/barrel cost would raise Big Islanders’ electricity rates.

It proposes to supply liquid fuel for the Keahole plant, which represents 60 percent of base electrical power on the Big Island. Most of the increase to our Big Island electricity bills would be due to liquid fuel pass through. So AKP’s $200/barrel biofuel cost would have a significant, negative impact on Big Islanders’ electricity bills.

Hawai‘i’s poor already have the highest tax burden in the nation, according to a front page headline in Thursday’s Hawaii Tribune-Herald.

Let’s not increase the burden; let’s lessen it.

We can. Check out the Big Island Community Coalition, which is working toward lowest cost electricity for the Big Island.

Instead of the Aina Koa Pono project, we should support HELCO’s ­22MW Hu Honua biomass/firewood project, as well as the 50MW geothermal project. If we include the present 38MW geothermal project, of which the old 25 MW contract is being renegotiated right now, it will result in 110MWs of stable, affordable electricity. More than 60 percent of our electricity would come from stable, affordable sources.

This is what will protect us from rising world oil prices. And as the price of oil rises, which it will, Big Island electricity rates would stay stable. Our electricity rates would actually become the lowest in the state.

Can you even imagine the changes that will happen when the Big Island has the lowest electricity rates in the state? We have become so accustomed to electricity bills that are 25 percent higher that we have a hard time imagining anything different.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

There will be a paradigm shift when our electricity costs are the lowest in the state. We will be able to protect some of the most defenseless among us, without having to raise the tax rates.

When people have spending money, they spend that money. They
boost economic activity. Farmers can make money and even manufacture food products for the O‘ahu market. This would increase our food security.

Our County government will be able to maintain services without having to raise taxes.

Let’s all support each other as we work toward lowest cost electricity for all Big Islanders. Not, no can. CAN!

HECO Withdraws Rate Increase Request & More

Richard Ha writes:

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

State Reaches Settlement with Hawaiian Electric Company

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Noelani Kalipi 

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

What’s wrong with this picture?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest here

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s already started.

Is HECO Seriously Damaging Its Credibility?

A proposed biofuels project that Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) supports is going through PUC approval process right now.

HECO’s public relations people say that as a result of this new project going through, the average Hawai‘i rate payer’s electricity bill would increase by only about $1 per month.

But let’s look at that in a little more depth. HECO is seeking approval to pay Aina Koa Pono (AKP) $200/barrel for the biofuel it produces on the Big Island at Ka‘ū, and would pass on any extra cost (beyond what oil actually costs at the time) to its rate payers, both on the Big Island and on O‘ahu.

HECO has kept that $200/barrel price secret – they are still keeping it secret – but the Big Island Community Coalition folks figured out the price, and how the “$1/month rate increase” was determined.

Using the Energy Information Agency’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO-2012), one can see that HECO is using the highest price scenario, which projects an oil price close to $180/barrel in 2015. In the AKP discussion, it was said that the price of oil would exceed the actual price projected at the end of the period.

We can see that the line hits $200/barrel in 2035. Since they assume that oil will be $180 in 2015, they can therefore say that the difference (between the actual and projected price) would be very small: Hence, an increase of only perhaps $1/month for the average rate payer.

However, it follows that if the actual price of oil is much lower than $180/barrel, rate payers will be paying the difference between that amount and $200. What if the actual cost of oil in 2015 is $120/barrel? That would cause rates to go up much more than $1/month – especially for high-power users.

I cannot help but think that HECO is damaging its credibility immensely by pushing this project. HECO is spending hundreds of
thousands of dollars on public relations to convince us that it is trying to lower people’s rates – when, in secret, it appears to be doing exactly the opposite.

By the way, HECO says the hundreds of thousands of dollars it spends on PR comes from its shareholders. How can rate payers tell when HECO is speaking on behalf of its shareholders, and when it’s speaking on behalf of its customers?

This Aina Koa Pono project needs to be rejected because it will make our electricity rates rise. Rising electricity rates act like a giant regressive tax, because as folks who are able to leave get off the grid, those who cannot afford to are left to pay for the grid.

This results in farmers and other business folks having higher operating costs. For everyone else, it takes away discretionary income. And we know that two-thirds of our economy is made up of consumer spending.

There are also problems with the project itself. Fuel has never actually been produced using the process and feedstock that Aina Koa Pono proposes. AKP does not know what it is going to grow. So far, the feedstock it is testing experimentally is white pine. The Micro Dee technology that AKP wants to use is still experimental.

There is also a risk that this process might use more energy than it generates. Generating electricity is generally about boiling water and making steam that turns a turbine. It is cheapest to burn the stuff, boil water and make steam.

But Aina Koa Pono’s proposed process is extremely energy-intensive and expensive: It would make electricity to make microwaves to vaporize the cellulose to get the liquid and then take the pyrolysis oil, refine it to make it burnable, and then haul it down to Keahole in tanker trucks to make steam. Why should the rate payer pay for all that?

Cellulosic biofuels are not yet a cost-effective technology. On the mainland, in the middle of last year, the Environmental Protection Agency drastically decreased its 2011 estimate for cellulosic biofuel from 250 million gallons to a paltry 6 million gallons.

In 2010, cellulosic biofuel companies on the mainland needed to buy their feedstock for $45/ton. But because farmers were earning $100/ton for hay, the biofuel firms received a $45/ton subsidy.

I asked how much AKP expected to pay for feedstock, and the AECOM Technology Corporation consultant said between $55 and $65/ton. The problem there is that Hawai‘i farmers have been earning $200/ton for hay for 10 years now.

There is an agricultural production risk, as well. Palm oil is the only industrial-scale biofuel that can compete with petroleum oil. AKP has 12,000 acres and it says it will produce 18 million gallons of biofuel annually, and another 6 million gallons of drop-in diesel. So it will produce 24 million gallons using 12,000 acres. That is 2,000 gallons per acre, and that is four times the production of palm oil. More likely they would need at least four times as much land, or 48,000 acres. But where?

Consider too that Ka‘ū Sugar relied on natural rainfall, and it was one of the least productive of the sugar companies. There is a drought right now. And at 22 degrees N latitude, the area has less sun energy than the palm oil producers located on the equator.

According to Energy Expert Robert Hirsch, in his book The Impending World Energy Mess, the best model for biofuel production is a circular one, where processing is done in the
center of a field (which does not exceed a radius of 50 miles) consisting of flat land and deep fertile soil with irrigation and lots of sun energy. This situation exists in Central Maui, where Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company (HC&S) is located. It explains exactly why HC&S is the sole surviving Hawai‘i sugar plantation.

To compete heads up in the world market would require the best possible combination of production factors. These are not them.

It’s also important to consider that locking ourselves into a 20-year contract now would preclude lower cost alternatives. Geothermal, for example, is the equivalent of oil at $57/barrel. Ocean thermal has the possibility of being significantly lower in price than $200/barrel oil.  LNG is on the radar and so is biomass gasification. Who knows what else would come up in 20 years?

Paul Brewbaker and Carl Bonham, both highly respected Council of Revenue members, have said, very emphatically and for a while now, that low energy cost is critical. We should listen to them.

The International Monetary Fund team modeled different oil supply scenarios and did a presentation at the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) conference a month and a half ago. They could not model a constant $200/barrel oil. Those would be uncharted waters; and ones, by the way, that would devastate Hawai‘i’s tourist industry. Why should we start paying $200/barrel for oil in 2015 if we don’t have to?

Five people from Hawai‘i attended this year’s ASPO conference. Notably, Kamehameha Schools sent two high-level people. Next year, Hawai‘i should send 20 people to learn what’s happening with oil prices and energy.

In the meantime, the amount of risk involved in the AKP biofuels proposal is just far too great. In the investment world, reward is generally commensurate with risk. Except for protection from $200/barrel oil in later years, the AKP project would provide little reward for all the risk we rate payers would assume.

This is a very, very bad deal for consumers.

Big Island electricity rates have been 25 percent higher than O‘ahu’s for as long as anyone can remember. This probably adds to the reason why the Big Island has the lowest median family income in the state, as well as the social ills that go with it. We need lower rates, not higher rates!

Although this is not an official Big Island Community Coalition (BICC) communication, I would like to point out that the BICC has been very instrumental in getting lots of people to stand up and say, “Enough is enough.”

The BICC is a bare-bones, grass roots citizen group with some of the most recognizable names on the Big Island on its steering committee: Dave DeLuz Jr., John E K Dill, Rockne Freitas, Michelle Galimba, Richard Ha, Wallace Ishibashi Sr., Ku‘ulei Kealoha Cooper, D. Noelani Kalipi, Ka‘iu Kimura, Robert Lindsey, H M Monty Richards, Marcia Sakai, Kumu Lehua Veincent and William Walter.

Line In The Sand

Richard Ha writes:

The Hawaii Tribune-Herald recently had a front page article
titled HELCO Rate Hike Request Blasted.

By COLIN M. STEWART

Tribune-Herald staff writer

A review of testimony submitted last month to the state Public Utilities Commission reveals overwhelming opposition to proposals by Hawaii Electric Light Co. to increase its electricity rates next year.

…Ono said that Big Isle opposition to the HELCO proposals had been some of the strongest that he has seen.

Big Island folks stood up and said, “Enough is enough!” and the Consumer Advocate noticed.

Last time around, the Consumer Advocate supported the HECO/Aina Koa Pono (AKP) biofuel proposal. But based on the great number of written and oral testimony and the consumer advocate’s letter to HECO/AKP asking for explanation on numerous points—which everyone knows they cannot answer—it does not appear that the Consumer Advocate will be on HECO/AKP’s side this time.

The article doesn’t mention how incredulous people were to find out the HECO/AKP proposal would pay $200 per barrel for biofuel and pass the cost on to rate payers. HECO said they would not say how much they would pay, for “proprietary reasons.” Worse, because HECO assumed a very high oil price, HECO’s PR people made it sound like rate payers would only pay $1 per month. They should have been more evenhanded.

On top of all that, television commercials say that HECO has increased geothermal 25 percent, as if it’s a big deal. Going from 30MW to 38MW is a tiny amount. Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to say these sorts of things does not help HECO’s credibility.

There could be a PUC decision by late spring or early summer. If we are successful in opposing this, it will demonstrate that the public is not powerless and by following the process, people really can make change. We have drawn a line in the sand. Enough is indeed enough! No more electricity rate hikes!

Instead of doom and gloom, dare we dream of a better life for future generations?

Bill Walter Tells PUC No to 4.2% HELCO Increase

Richard Ha writes:

Here is Bill Walter’s testimony against HELCO’s proposed 4.2 percent rate increase, which he submitted to the PUC. Tomorrow (Friday, November 30, 2012) is the deadline for all testimony against this rate increase, as well as the proposed Aina Koa Pono project. You can email your testimony to: hawaii.puc@hawaii.gov.

It’s in the interest of the utility, as well as in the interest of the people, that we all seek lower electricity rates.

To: hawaii.puc@hawaii.gov
Subject: HELCO RATE INCREASE OF 4.2% – Docket 2012 – 0099

Commissioners,

Thank you for the opportunity to write you on this subject. At some point, the questions before you on various rate increases proposed by HELCO/HECO are simple:

•How much is enough? and

•When do we draw the line on increases?

We understand that while the questions are essentially fairly simple, finding answers can seem very difficult. Those wanting the rates to increase run through myriad statistics, data, logic and come up with apparently compelling reason. These answers come in an age old context of how we, as a society that is primarily market based, handle a monopoly supplier of an essential ingredient of our modern life. Over the generations the solution has typically revolved around ensuring a reasonable return on company (hence, stockholder) assets while providing a level of service that ensures quality to the community. While in a general case over the last 75 years that may have been reasonable, we suggest questioning that – at least for this community at this time. Please note the following:

• As it is, Hawaii Island rate payers pay four times the US national average for electric power. We pay a 25% premium compared to Oahu – today.

• Hawaii Island residents include among the most economically challenged in the State of Hawaii. While certainly not the only reason, the high cost of power works to keep our residents economically challenged. Why?

The cost of operating any business with more than a marginal energy input on the Island experiences higher energy costs than competition from most other locations. When you add to this the cost of getting our product to market (or the market to our product in the case of tourism) the competitive hurdle can become prohibitive to overcome. This increase will only add to that hurdle.

• Because of the integral nature of electric power to our way of life, the cost of electricity is little different in effect from the most regressive of taxes. If you look at this simile several issues jump at you:

In the last four years governments across the country have been highly reticent to raise taxes understanding the negative impact higher taxes would have on the economy and on those most economically challenged. This relates back to the point above – namely that higher electric power costs have a depressing affect on the economy of the Island of Hawaii, at their current level.

Local governments – including ours here on the Island of Hawaii – have taken extraordinary steps to reduce the cost of government services while retaining government service levels. On this island that has included furloughs of County workers, layoffs, employment freezes, job sharing, looking for efficiencies that allow for reduced expenses across the board, reductions in executive staff salaries, suspension or reduction in non essential services – and the list goes on. It is common place to hear of businesses on this island taking similar – and in some cases more radical steps to reduce expenses. It is uncomfortable, but notable that we have heard of no such steps taken by our utilities in order to try to pass on to the community reduced costs that may be helpful in these difficult times. In fact, what we have heard is like this – requests for higher prices. Somehow that difference is hard to take.

•The long term reality is that power generation is moving to dis-integration much as phone service has rapidly moved in that direction. It would be wise for both the Commission and the companies to ask if it is not time to consider this coming dis-integration. The only way for the current system to survive in the long run is to be in a price reduction, not price increase mode. The cost of standalone competition is inexorably being reduced. Sooner than later only those who cannot afford to get off the grid will have departed it – how will that work and will the commission have been a part of that scenario?

So my short answer to these questions is that “enough is already enough” and the line needs to be drawn now – for the survival both of the island economy and for the survival of the utility.

My personal response has been to join the Big Island Community Coalition looking for ways to reduce power costs. I am becoming proactive in this direction. We ask that the commission and, indeed, HELCO/HECO become proactive in this direction as well. Better that we spend our efforts looking for cost reducing solutions than for cost increasing reasons.

Thank you for your consideration.

Bill Walter