Tag Archives: HECO

Big Island, Biofuel, Community, Lowering Electric Rates, Renewable Energy Sources

Graphic Opposition to Aina Koa Pono & 4.2% HELCO Rate Increase

November 29, 2012 Richard Ha

Richard Ha writes:

More PUC testimony from a Big Island resident opposing the Aina Koa Pono biofuels project and the proposed 4.2 percent HECO rate increase.

See below where he charted the price of crude oil over the past two years, as well as how much his HELCO bill increased over the same period of time, and didn’t find much correlation.

Dear Chair Morita & Commissioners:

I want to express my most sincere opposition both to the Aina Koa Pono Biofuel project and the Helco 4.2% rate hike.

In today’s day and age it is inconceivable that while we are living in one of the most privileged locations on the planet with regards to renewable energy resources availability we still depend on a single utility company that holds a true monopoly on the power generation and that continues to ignore what would be the most efficient path towards energy independence.

South Puna seats on a rich geothermal zone that could provide enough power for the entire Big Island. South Kona & Kohala areas have enough sun radiation to produce a significant supplement to the grid, and South Point and Saddle Road areas provide some of the most reliable wind patterns for wind generation. Yet, here we are debating on whether we should lock in a $200/barrel deal with a biofuel company. Who in its right mind would opt for this option!?

As for the rate hike, the following graph shows my cost per kWh at my home for the past two year (since Jan 2010)

As you can see from the graph, my price has increased from $0.36/kWh to $0.42/kWh, that is a 16.7% increase in just two years. Now they want an additional 4% increase? under what justification? meanwhile, HELCO continues to report record profits year after year.

And do you know what the real kicker is? look at the following graph, that shows the price per barrel of crude oil (WTI) between January 2010 and November 2012 (source: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=RWTC&f=D).

Notice any discrepancy between the two graphs? In Jan 2010 the price per barrel of crude oil was $82.00, in November 2012 the price is $87.50 an increase of 6.7%. Helco has increased their rates 2.5 times the net increase of the price of oil, and now they want another increase.

Sincerely,

Rodrigo F.V. Romo, Ch.E., MBA, LEED AP

VP Engineering

Zeta Corporation

Big Island, Biofuel, Community, Lowering Electric Rates, Renewable Energy Sources

How Much HECO Is Spending On Those Ads, & More PUC Testimony

November 29, 2012 Richard Ha

Richard Ha writes:

You’ve probably seen the slick newspaper and TV ads. Hawaii Electric Company (HECO) has spent more than half a million dollars recently to convince us they are trying their hardest to do the right thing. The company is very good at public relations.

For example, the ads say HECO has increased geothermal energy on the Big Island by 25 percent. That sounds wonderful – but that is from a base of only 30 MW. It also says that Aina Koa Pono will only result in $1 per month difference to a typical rate payer.

The big picture is that HECO has resisted closing down its oil-fired plants for years. But now, people are saying enough is enough.

Here is another concerned community member’s testimony against Aina Koa Pono and the proposed 4.2 percent rate increase. Send yours to hawaii.puc@hawaii.gov by tomorrow.

To: ‘Hawaii.PUC@hawaii.gov’
Subject: Dockets Docket # 2012-0185 & 2012-0099

Aloha Chair Morita and commissioners:

I am strongly against the AKP biofuel supply contract and the increase in the Helco electricity rates.

I have lived here on the Big Island in Puna, close to Pahoa for the last 14 years and am the owner of a bed & breakfast operation in Leilani Estates. I have a family with two children and two acres of property. If any of the two dockets go through it will increase the cost of doing business for me and infringe on the viability of my operation. The nature of my business requires for electricity to be available to our guests and there are many times, when I cannot control the use of it, because guests staying at my B&B may not be as conscientious in preserving energy as I am: fans, lights, radios or TVs are left on even though the visitors are not in their rooms. In order to cover additional operational cost my only option would be to increase our B&B rates, however, with the current economy this will result in a decrease of bookings, as people traveling always look for bargains and are not willing to pay higher accommodation rates, if they can get a “beat-the-price” online offer for some of the hotels as package deal with much better conditions.

On the Big Island, electricity rates have been 25 percent higher than Oahu’s rate for as long as people can remember. It has contributed to the Big Island having one of the lowest median family incomes in the state and the attendant social problems that come with a struggling economy. As a family this affects our children and the way we are able to give back into the economy and our communities.

Rising electricity rates act like a regressive tax – people at the bottom of the economic ladder suffer the most. But it is worse; as electricity prices rise, folks that can afford to leave the grid will do so, leaving the folks unable to leave to assume more of the grid infrastructure cost. It is a catch 22. For me with my business depending on consistent electricity supply, it would be impossible to leave the grid and I would be directly impacted by the increased rates and future consumer decisions.

1. Aina Koa Pono Biofuel Project – Docket 2012-0185: Rate payers will subsidize the difference between the actual oil price and the $200 that AKP will be guaranteed for 20 years. It is more than possible that actual oil prices would be substantially below $200 for the whole contract period. That will result in a heavy subsidy that rate payers must bear. The $200 per barrel rate is much too high. And the cost differential that is anticipated to be passed through to the rate payer is unconscionable. The PUC should not approve as just and reasonable that the utility should be allowed to establish a Biofuel Surcharge provision that will allow the pass through of the cost differential to the consumer as well as the actual cost pass through itself.

2. HELCO Rate Increase – Docket 2012-0099: HELCO states in its full page newspaper advertisement that only 3% of its revenue goes to profits. In 2011 HELCO reported $138.2 million in net earnings. Most small businesses in Hawaii do not have a 3% profit margin, most net earnings are much lower and that includes my Bed & Breakfast business. Increased electricity rates would narrow this margin even more. I am entirely opposed to an increase in electricity rates. As a business owner it is HELCO’s responsibility to keep the grid in operating condition. This is not the responsibility of the end users nor should we be charged for it. It is a crucial part of the operating expenses and investments in the future, that a business has to strategically make. It is the same for my business, if I let my rooms fall into disrepair or do not invest in new mattresses every few years, people will stop coming. It is in my best interest to make these investments as I am wanting to stay in business. It is the same for a utility company. Not all investments can be directly compensated by increased rates. The market and consumers will only bare so much – and as consumers, we are saying – no more! Profits will go up and down, depending on what investments have to be made – and that is true for all businesses. But as a business owner we all know that these investments are long term and also mean decreases in the company’s corporate taxes. Also, how much do you think the HELCO advertising campaign costs? Without knowing exact figures I am sure it is in the millions. As end consumers, we are paying for that, too! What a waste of good money…

Petra Wiesenbauer

Big Island, Biofuel, Lowering Electric Rates, Peak Oil, Renewable Energy Sources

Speak Up By Friday & Make an Important Difference

November 26, 2012 Richard Ha 1 Comment

Richard Ha writes:

Regarding the Aina Koa Pono (AKP) biofuel project, and despite its full-page newspaper ads, Hawaii Electric Light Company (HECO) has clearly shown that it does not have the public interest at heart.

The utility kept secret how much AKP would be paid – $200 per barrel – and manipulated that information to estimate that the average rate payer would pay $1 per month and make us feel like this was a small thing.

This is grossly unfair. There are many different ways HECO could have informed the public without compromising proprietary information. Instead, behind our backs, it was applying to pass through the cost of $200 per barrel oil.

It’s unconscionable to do this to the “rubbah slippah” folks.

Now, week after week, HECO continues to run its full page newspaper ads to wash our brains and tell us how much it is trying to lower our rates. Hmmmm.

This Friday, November 30, 2012, is the deadline to submit testimony to the PUC opposing the Aina Koa Pono project.

Email your letter to: hawaii.puc@hawaii.gov and reference this in the subject line: PUC Docket #2012-0185; Application for approval of biofuel supply contract with Aina Koa Pono.

Here’s the testimony I sent:

To: PUC <hawaii.puc@hawaii.gov>
Subject: PUC Docket #2012-0185; Application for approval of biofuel supply contract with Aina Koa Pono

Aloha Chair Morita and commissioners:

I am strongly against the AKP biofuel supply contract.

I am president of Hamakua Springs Country Farms, which is a family farming operation. We farm 600 fee simple acres of bananas and tomatoes at Pepe‘ekeo on the Big Island. We have more than 35 years of farming experience. I am a committee member of the Hawaii Clean Energy Steering Committee. I was co-chair of the Geothermal Working Group. I have attended four Association for the Study of Peak Oil conferences, so I have a fair understanding of energy issues.

My testimony relates to the effect that the AKP biofuel contract will have on my workers and on my farm, as well as on food security in general and the Big Island’s economy in particular.

The AKP/HECO fueling arrangement contemplates AKP being paid approximately $200 per barrel of biofuel. The $200 per barrel payment to AKP will begin in 2015, when AKP is anticipated to deliver the specified quality fuel. The contract will then last for 20 years. HECO points out that the rate subsidy will only begin when AKP delivers fuel, as if to say that there will be minimum economic effect on rate payers. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The AKP fuel purchase contract of 20 years precludes utilizing potentially lower cost alternatives. Geothermal, for example, is 11 cents per kilowatt hour less than oil for generating electricity. If geothermal were used instead of oil at the 60 MW Keahole plant, it would save $58 million annually compared to oil at today’s price. And oil today is nearly half the cost of AKP’s fuel oil at $200 per barrel.

It appears that the AKP contract tracks the AEO 2012 high price scenario instead of the reference case scenario. During the last few years, knowledgeable commentators such as Jeff Rubin point out that rising demand and rising oil prices contains the seed of its own destruction. The last four recessions, dating back to 1970, indicate that oil price spikes cause recessions. And recessions cause oil prices to fall back. Global economic growth is grinding to a halt when oil is close to $100 per barrel. So it is more prudent to follow the reference case of the EIA’s AEO 2012 oil price projection – instead of the high rate case oil price path that HECO chose.

The PUC should not approve as just and reasonable that the utility should be allowed to establish a Biofuel Surcharge provision that will allow the pass through of the cost differential to the consumer as well as the actual cost pass through itself.

Rate payers will subsidize the difference between the actual oil price and the $200 that AKP will be guaranteed for 20 years. It is more than possible that actual oil prices would be substantially below $200 for the whole contract period. That will result in a heavy subsidy that rate payers must bear. The $200 per barrel rate is much too high. And the cost differential that is anticipated to be passed through to the rate payer is unconscionable.

Rising electricity rates act like a regressive tax – the folks on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder suffer the most. But it is worse; as electricity prices rise, folks that can afford to leave the grid will do so, leaving the folks unable to leave to assume more of the grid infrastructure cost.

Oil price has quadrupled in the last ten years. People and businesses have made necessary adjustments, but there is just no more to cut. Farmers have cut back on employee benefits, and they have cut back on capital improvements to survive. But this is false economy; sooner or later, maintenance foregone will catch up. Farmers are especially vulnerable because they are price takers rather than price makers. It is our food security that is at stake.

Hawaiian farmers’ and food manufacturers’ main competition is U.S. mainland producers. Oil costs make up less than 2 percent of the electricity costs on the mainland. Oil is more than 70 percent of the cost of electricity in Hawa‘ii. Any mainland food product that has substantial cheap electricity costs imbedded in it becomes relatively more competitive to Hawai‘i products as oil prices rise. AKP’s price subsidy will make Hawai‘i food producers even less competitive to their mainland counterparts. Allowing cost differential pass through will threaten our food security.

Higher electricity costs from the AKP project will affect fresh food costs. Farmers, wholesalers and customers of locally gown food all pay for the electricity that it takes to maintain the “cold chain.” That raises food cost and takes away discretionary income from consumers. Consumer spending makes up two thirds of our economy. Allowing cost differential pass through threatens our economy.

Rising electricity rates act like a regressive tax – the folks on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder suffer the most. But it is worse: As electricity prices rise, folks that can afford to leave the grid will do so. This leaves the folks unable to leave to assume more of the grid infrastructure cost. These are the very people who are most affected by rising electricity rates. Allowing cost differential pass through is not in the public interest.

In this particular project, HECO has shown that it does not have the public interest at heart. Worse, it kept secret the $200 per barrel amount that AKP would be paid and then manipulated that information to come up with an estimate of $1 per month for the average rate payer. That was grossly unfair. Passing on the high biofuel cost to the rubbah slippah folks while making it seem that there would hardly be an effect is unconscionable. There were many different ways they could have informed the public without compromising proprietary information. Instead they chose this way. It speaks for itself.

Richard Ha

Biofuel, Peak Oil, Renewable Energy Sources

Legend of the Horse That Was Really a Unicorn

November 18, 2012 Richard Ha

It was a hard-working
horse, they said, and it would not cost us much money.

All our problems
would be solved, they insisted, if we just had this horse.

And from the back
end, it did indeed look like a horse.

They said we couldn’t
look at the horse’s face, though, for competitive reasons.

It wouldn’t be fair
to the other horses, they said.

We searched and
searched through the scrolls,

and we realized that
all was not what it seemed.

Their “horse,”
it turned out, was actually a unicorn.

One of their friends
spoke up.

“What if we gave you
the uni….er, I mean the horse, for free?

What if we made
people from the land of O‘ahu pay for the horse?”

We said, “No. The
unicorn spends more time eating than working.”

Someone shouted, from
the back of the great hall,

“Don’t believe them!
They want to take over the kingdom!”

We replied, “No! We
just don’t want to take care of a unicorn.

A unicorn does not
help our people. It eats too much and takes up too much land.

We worry about having
enough food for the most defenseless among us.”

And that, Boys and Girls, was the start of the Rubbah Slippah
Revolution.

HECO and Aina Koa Pono (AKP) both issued glowing press releases
about the AKP project. But neither would say how much AKP would be paid for its
biofuels. They said it was a secret – to protect other bidders.

They said that the average ratepayer would only pay about $1
more per month, and that this would only go into effect if AKP was successful
in producing biofuel. They said it would mean several hundred new jobs, and
lots of money would be saved by not importing oil.

The project anticipated supplying HELCO’s Keahole 80MW plant
with most of its liquid fuel needs. That would be roughly 16 million gallons
annually, plus another 8 million gallons for transportation fuel.

HECO was not being fair when it would not give price
information and yet did predict that this would be very inexpensive to rate payers
– basing all this on assumptions and secret information.

The cost of the biofuel the rate payer would subsidize, it
turns out, is around $200/barrel. This is not a small amount. By assuming that
the price of oil would be close to $200, HECO could then say that this project would
not cost the ratepayers substantially more than what they would be paying
anyway.

Try wait! No amount of public relations will earn back the
credibility lost because of this unfair assumption.

Also, AKP says, the microwave technology they plan to use has
been successfully and safely used in the herbal extraction and pharmaceutical
industries for decades.

People who know tell me that this statement is like someone
with a Piper Cub pilot’s license offering to fly you to the moon sometime in
the future. But at least this one is a claim we can research.

Both the Hilo and Kona PUC hearings made clear that the
people are vehemently against the Aina Koa Pono project. At the Kona hearing,
the Consumer Advocate asked whether people would be in favor of this project if
all the costs were paid by O‘ahu rate payers. I think the logic was that O‘ahu
residents should pay for this, because it helps O‘ahu fulfill its part of the
Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative mandate for renewable energy.

Doesn’t each island’s contribution apply to the whole state?
Try wait!

AKP claims that it’s a fact that Keahole will be using
liquid fuel far into the future.

We don’t agree that we should favor AKP’s 20-year contract,
because it precludes using lower-cost alternatives; for example, natural gas
and other technologies that are being fast tracked, such as ocean energy.

Take geothermal as an example. Generating electricity at today’s
prices using geothermal costs 11 cents/kilowatt hour less than oil. Output at
the 80MW Keahole plant (which is equivalent to 80,000 kilowatts) times 11
cents/kilowatt hour is equal to saving $8,800/hour, $211,000/day and $77
million/year. That amount of savings could pay off the potential stranded asset
and also save the rate payer money.

The barrel equivalent of geothermal is $57. Why would we
want to tie ourselves to a $200/barrel and a 20-year contract?

Aina Koa Pono says it will, on its 12,000 acres, produce 24
million gallons of fuel per year. That’s roughly 2,000 gallons of biofuel per acre,
which is four times more productive than palm oil, the only biofuel that can
compete with oil. Yet they plan to do it with an undetermined species of grass.

Ka‘u Sugar Company, in the projected area of Aina Koa Pono,
grew sugar cane and was one of the least productive sugar companies in the
state. Sugar cane is a grass.

AKP is not cost-effective and it doesn’t make sense for us.
We need to concentrate on solutions that better the condition of our people.

If you agree and would like to let the PUC know, this is the time. You can write to the PUC before November 30th at Hawaii.puc@hawaii.gov, and refer to “PUC Doc 2012-0185-Application for biofuel supply contract.”

Biofuel, Community, Geothermal, Peak Oil, Renewable Energy Sources

Rubbah Slippah Folks Turn Out at Kona PUC Meeting

November 2, 2012 Richard Ha

Richard Ha writes:

The Kona PUC hearing we’ve been talking about here took place on Tuesday evening.

From West Hawaii Today:

Powerful resistance to PUC

By Erin Miller

West Hawaii Today

West Hawaii residents described to the Public Utilities Commission how they have cut back on energy usage, and questioned why Hawaiian Electric Light Co. shouldn’t have to bear the costs of upgrading its own equipment.

The questions continued as the PUC heard comments from residents Tuesday evening on a proposed contract between HELCO, Oahu’s Hawaii Electric Co. and Aina Koa Pono for a biodiesel project in Ka‘u.

Albert Prados, manager of the Fairway Villas at Waikoloa Beach Resort, was one of more than 20 people who testified against HELCO’s rate increase request, which HELCO officials would raise rates 4.2 percent, or about $8 per an average 500 kilowatt hour monthly bill. Prados described the measures he has taken in his own home, including shutting everything off except the refrigerator at night, to lower his electricity bill. Read the rest

Mayor Kenoi took a very strong stand on renewable energy. He
made clear that it is not sufficient that it be renewable; it also needs to be affordable. He is concerned about the most defenseless among us.

He said, This is the kind of project that 20 years from now, we will be asking, “How did we let that happen?” He also said that we are doing this for the benefit of HEI and HECO – but that there is no benefit for the Big Island. The Mayor is very aware that high and rising electricity costs threaten our economy and also the folks on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder.

Rep. Denny Coffman asked, “How is it we are here? This is not even proven technology.” He pointed out that the electric utility is setting the state’s energy policy, and that that should stop while we finish the Integrated Resource Planning process that’s happening right now. Rep. Coffman understands the energy situation worldwide and he knows it’s foolish to be chasing unproven technology. It is both a waste of time and money. In Hawai‘i, we do have proven technology that is affordable.

My testimony:

To answer the Consumer Advocate’s question, “Would we change our minds if all the costs were given to the Oahu rate payers?,” the answer is no! I think that giving AKP a 20-year contract will forego the opportunity of developing lower cost alternatives. And it will take up valuable time. Liquid natural gas is an option. Ocean energy might be ready within the 20-year period. Geothermal is an affordable, proven technology. For instance, there is an 11 cent difference between geothermal and oil today. We could replace liquid fuels with 80MW of geothermal electricity, and apply that savings to pay the remaining debt of the Keahole 80 MW liquid fuel burning plant.

(80 MW is equal to 80,000 kilowatts. That 11 cents/kilowatt hour savings multiplied by 80,000 kilowatt hours equals $8,800 that you save each hour. And the savings per day is $211,200. That times 365 days equals an annual savings of $77 million. That is enough to write off the plant and still give the rate payers a break.)

Consumer Advocate Jeff Ono asked: “If O‘ahu rate payers would pay the cost, would you still be against the AKP project?”

Most of the time, making electricity has to do with making steam to turn a turbine. You can burn coal to make steam, or you can burn oil to make steam. You can burn firewood to make steam, or use the steam from underground – that’s geothermal.

AKP takes the long way. They grow plants using fossil fuels,
then they use electricity to make microwaves to vaporize the plants, then take the liquid that rises and convert it to a burnable liquid, and haul it to Keahole, where they burn it to make steam.

It isn’t surprising that it is expensive.

More than a few engineer folks tell me that this process
uses more energy than it makes. And if that is the case, it will always be more expensive than oil. This is not a good bet for us.

Palm oil is the only biofuel today that can compete heads up
with petroleum oil. It produces 600 gallons of oil per acre. AKP strives to produce 16 million gallons per acre, plus another 8 million gallons – or 24 million gallons from 12,000 acres. That is 4 times as productive as palm oil, the only biofuel that competes straight up with petroleum oil. If it works, they don’t need any subsidy from us. If it works, they will all end up billionaires.

We cannot predict the price of oil. But people are hurting right now. And if oil prices reach $200 per barrel, the tourism industry will be devastated and everything connected with it will shrink. We do not have the luxury of time. We need a lower cost alternative right now.

Well-respected Council of Revenues economists Paul Brewbaker, of TZE Economics, and Carl Bonham, Executive Director of the
University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization (UHERO), agree that low-cost energy is a key component of our economic future.

There are alternatives to $200/barrel biofuel. Geothermal is the equivalent of $57/barrel. Liquid natural gas is low cost now on the
mainland, and maybe ocean energy will be an alternative within the time period of the contract.

We need lower cost electricity, not higher, and AKP is not the answer. The AKP project is wasting valuable time, and we need to put it to bed so we can focus our attention on the next projects.

I agree with the electric utility from here forward. The next PUC hearing will be on the Hu Honua biomass plant at Pepe‘ekeo. They will use wood chips to boil water and make steam. This is proven technology and it looks to be cost effective.

After that will be a proposal for 50MW of geothermal. Geothermal does not have to burn anything. It just uses the steam underground to make electricity and it is cost effective.

At that time, HELCO with its leverage should be able to successfully renegotiate the old contract that is tied to oil. Then we will be well on our way to protecting ourselves from the volatility of world oil prices. Those two projects will result in a total of 110 MW of stable, affordable electricity using proven technology.

We need to strive for balance and common sense as we try to make things work for everyone. Hospitals, schools, hotels and businesses need the electric services provided by the grid. Fifty percent of our people rent and so cannot get off the grid. We need to be practical, and help to make sure the electric utility is healthy as we strive for a lower cost to the rate payer.

Biofuel, Peak Oil

What Happened to $200 Oil?

October 26, 2012 Richard Ha

Richard Ha writes:

Whatever happened to $200 oil?

For the last few years, supply side thinking was the most prevalent way of considering the world’s oil supply. But in this last year,
something changed. Commentators started to ask about the demand side.

Specifically, they started asking, “What happens if demand goes up and prices start to rise – eventually killing demand?” In that scenario, the rising price of oil contains the seed of its own destruction.

In May of this year, Jeff Rubin, who had been the most outspoken expert warning of $200 oil, changed his mind. He calls what is happening “the end of growth.”

Whatever Happened to $200 Oil?
by Jeff Rubin on May 23rd, 2012

Four years ago, when I was still chief economist at CIBC World Markets, I forecast that global economic growth was on pace to send oil prices to $200 a barrel by 2012. In short, the argument was based on a supply-driven analysis that weighed the sources of future oil supply against the prices that would be needed to make the extraction and processing of that oil economically viable…. Read the rest

If Jeff and many others are right, we are not looking at a rapid climb of the price of oil to $200/barrel. It may not get to that price for 20 years.

And if that’s true, HECO’s request to pay $200 per barrel for Aina Koa Pono’s biofuel will be a tremendous mistake. All that will be
accomplished is a massive transfer of wealth.

This is why I am so pleased that Kamehameha Schools (on the
recommendation of Neil Hannah, Kamehameha’s Director of the Land Assets Division) is sending two senior level management folks to the upcoming Peak Oil conference. Things are moving quickly in the world energy field, and policy makers need to be up on current information.

That HECO is betting on the high side of the 2012 AEO cost curve shows they are not aware that thinking has changed. Had they sent people to past Peak Oil conferences, they would have seen the shift.

Including myself, there are now five people from Hawai‘i going to the ASPO conference. We have the makings of a delegation. Robert Rapier will also be going, too, but I am not counting him because he is a national/international commentator and he will be presenting.

This will be my fifth ASPO conference. I cannot be happier that there are other people from Hawai‘i going, besides myself, and educating themselves on this very important subject.

Biofuel, Community, Lowering Electric Rates

It’s the Rubbah Slippah Revolution

October 25, 2012 Richard Ha

Richard Ha writes:

New information:

We encourage you to WEAR YOUR RUBBAH SLIPPAHS when you come to the PUC meeting on Monday (in Hilo), Tuesday (in Kona) or Thursday (in Honolulu) to let the PUC know how its approved increase to your electricity bill would affect you.

The Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce came up with this great idea of wearing rubbah slippahs to the PUC meetings, and we’re running with it. So to speak.

We’ll show the PUC that we are the rubbah slippah folks; the ones who are going to be affected by its decisions.

***

WHAT:

The PUC will be hearing HELCO’s proposal for a 4.2 percent rate hike, as well as Aina Koa Pono’s proposed biofuel project.

The Big Island Community Coalition opposes both proposals because they would raise, rather than lower, our electricity rates. You’ll see it on your monthly electric bills.

WHEN:

Monday, October 29, 2012 at 6 p.m. at the Hilo High School cafeteria
Tuesday, October 30, 2012 at 6 p.m. at the Kealakehe High School cafeteria
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 6 p.m. at Farrington High School.

WHY:

The PUC members are caring human beings. But they have to know what the people want. Only two people, I think, showed up at the last PUC hearing in Hilo. We need hundreds!

The Big Island is in trouble. We have one of the highest electricity rates in Hawai‘i – almost 25 percent higher than O‘ahu’s. High electricity rates are like a giant regressive tax, only worse. As people leave the electric grid to escape its high cost, those who cannot afford to do so pay even more.

The Big Island has a robust supply of alternatives to oil. We need to mobilize and make meaningful change.

Biofuel, Peak Oil, Renewable Energy Sources

The Big ‘Aina Koa Pono’ Risk

October 22, 2012 Richard Ha

Richard Ha writes:

Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) and Hawaii Electric Light
Company (HELCO) are asking for PUC approval to pay Aina Koa Pono $200/barrel for biofuel, and they are asking for approval to pass the cost straight through to the rate payers (us).

Should we rate payers accept the risk and provide the
subsidy? No!

We need to attend the upcoming PUC hearings and testify against assuming the $200/barrel cost of biofuels. Please consider attending. The hearings are:

East Hawai‘i:

Monday, Oct. 29th, 6 p.m. at the Hilo High School cafeteria

West Hawai‘i:

Tuesday, Oct. 30th, 6 p.m. at the Kealakehe High School
cafeteria

O‘ahu:

Thursday, Nov. 1st, 6 p.m. at Farrington High School

Should we rate payers pay for biodiesel that costs $200/barrel, starting in 2015 and lasting until 2035? There is a great risk that the price of oil will not follow the Annual Energy Outlook 2012 ‘high price forecast’, and if that’s the case, we will be paying more for electricity than we would be otherwise.

Very risky.

There is also a technology risk. Fuel has not yet ever been produced using the feedstock that Aina Koa Pono proposes to grow. So far, the feedstock being used experimentally is white pine. The Micro Dee technology Aina Koa Pono wants to use is still experimental.

Risky.

There is 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’s cheaper to burn the product to boil water. Aina Koa Pono’s proposed process – making electricity to make microwaves to vaporize the cellulose to get the liquid and then refine it to make it burnable, and haul it down to Keahole in tanker trucks to make steam – is extremely energy intensive.

Very risky.

Mid-year last year, on the mainland, the EPA drastically decreased its 2011 estimate for cellulosic biofuel from 250 million gallons to a paltry 6 million gallons. Almost all the cellulosic biofuel companies went bankrupt.

This makes this project risky as well.

In 2010, cellulosic biofuel companies needed to buy their feedstock for $45/ton. But because farmers were making $100/ton for hay, the biofuel firms got a $45/ton subsidy. I asked how much Aina Koa Pono 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.

The supply of feedstock is a risk.

There is agriculture production risk, as well. Palm oil is the only industrial-scale biofuel that can compete with petroleum oil. In the tropics, it produces 600 gallons of biodiesel per acre of production. Say Aina Koa Pono can produce 500 gallons of bodiesel, since we are located 22 degrees north of the equator. To produce 16 million gallons a year at 500 gallons per acre would require 32,000 acres of productive land. Add 10 percent more for roads and unusable land and you would need 35,200 acres. But we only have 12,000 acres to use. Is the feedstock throughput adequate to cover the capital costs? We don’t know. They have not decided on a feedstock yet.

Risky.

Imagine the 12,000 available acres could produce 16 million gallons. Then each acre would need to produce 1,333 gallons to get the required throughput.

This would be twice as productive as the best biofuel producers in the world.

It’s a risky assumption.

Ka’u Sugar relied on natural rainfall. Depending on natural rainfall makes achieving optimum production very risky, due to the very real possibility/probability of occasional drought.

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

If Aina Koa Pono is supposed to serve as an example from which to expand, then there is very limited suitable land on the Big Island
that meets the criteria. To compete heads up on the world market will require the best possible combination of production factors. These are not them.

Locking into a 20-year contract would preclude lower cost alternatives. Geothermal, for example, is the equivalent of oil at $57/barrel. Oceanthermal has the possibility of being significantly lower in price than $200 oil. Water-to-liquid fuel is a possibility, too.

The amount of risk involved is just far too great. In the investment world, the reward is generally commensurate with risk. Except for protection from $200 per barrel oil in the later years, there is little reward for all the risk we would assume.

This is a very bad deal for consumers.

Articles, Big Island, Community, Lowering Electric Rates, Renewable Energy Sources

‘HELCO & Your Bill: What’s Wrong With This Picture?’

August 27, 2012 Richard Ha 1 Comment

Richard Ha writes:

This Op-Ed piece just ran at Civil Beat, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, the Hawaii Tribune-Herald and West Hawaii Today.

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?

We — John E.K. Dill, Rockne Freitas, Richard Ha, Wallace Ishibashi, Ku‘ulei Kealoha Cooper, Noelani Kalipi, Ka‘iu Kimura, Robert Lindsey, H.M. “Monty” Richards, Marcia Sakai, Bill Walter — invite you to join our newly formed group, the Big Island Community Coalition. Our mission is “to work together as an island community for the greater good of Hawai‘i Island and its people.”

Our first priority: To make Big Island electricity rates the lowest in the state by emphasizing the use of our ample local resources.

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.

Big Island Mayor Billy Kenoi has sent a strong message that the county will not support new renewable energy projects — such as Aina Koa Pono, which would add surcharges to every electric customer’s bill — unless they result in cheaper energy. “Unless it has lower rates, we will not support it,” he said recently.

UH-Hilo just had a $5.5 million electric bill — almost $500,000 more than last year — and HELCO’s proposed 4.2 percent rate increase would add another $230,000 to their bill. The same thing is happening at hospitals, hotels and businesses. Farmers’ expenses are going way up, which threatens our food security. Electricity rate increases ripple through every part of our economy. They are already rippling.

People are already struggling with their monthly HELCO bill. Some are having their lights turned off.

As rates continue to increase, more people will leave the grid and fewer will remain to pay for the infrastructure, meaning that those households and businesses that remain (because they cannot afford to get off the grid) will pay even more.

You may think the electric utility is a big powerful entity that you cannot affect, but you can. Pay attention! Show up! Write a letter! Do something! If you leave your name and contact information at www.bigislandcommunitycoalition.com, we will send an occasional email to keep you informed of what’s happening, and how you can help.

‘Nuff already!!

Let’s be clear. This is not about how green the energy is. This is about how much the energy costs. This is not about saving the world. It’s about saving ourselves first, so we are in good condition to help save the world.

We had hoped that HECO would have a balanced approach to solving the problems. There are books written on how corporations can take care of people and the environment as well as their investment. The term is called “triple bottom line.”

From The Triple Bottom Line: How Today’s Best-Run Companies Are Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental Success – and How You Can Too:

Increasingly, businesses are expected to find ways to be part of the solution to the world’s environmental and social problems. The best companies are finding ways to turn this responsibility into opportunity. We believe that when business and societal interests overlap, everyone wins.

Rising electricity costs are like a regressive tax, where the poor pay a disproportionate amount of their income. Only it’s worse. As the price of oil rises, people who are able to, leave the grid. This leaves a diminishing number of people – those who cannot afford to leave – to pay for the grid.

What’s wrong with this picture?!

Geothermal, Peak Oil, Renewable Energy Sources

If We Spend All Our Money on Electricity…

January 9, 2012 Richard Ha 1 Comment

At a local level, the rising cost of electricity, whatever the cause, will result in severe economic pressures.

What’s important to realize is that 70 percent of our economy is based on consumer spending. “If people no more money, they no can spend.”

It all relates to costs.

See these Honolulu Star-Advertiser articles on the subject:

Geothermal power production could double

Hawaiian Electric Light Co. wants to tap more of the Earth’s power for electricity

By Alan Yonan Jr.

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jan 07, 2012

Officials from Hawaiian Electric Light Co. said Friday they will soon seek regulatory approval to more than double the amount of geothermal power produced on Hawaii island in a move that could provide some relief for residential utility customers, who pay the highest electric rates in the state…. Read more

and

Keep close eye on geothermal funds

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jan 07, 2012

Hawaii has been touted as an ideal laboratory for the development of renewable energy that’s bound up in its wind, seas and sunshine. It’s the southernmost island in the chain, however, that may be the most richly endowed overall, and the most promising resource of all is the one that’s buried far beneath the surface…. Read more

Having attended four Peak Oil conferences now, I have seen that Jeff Rubin is one of the credible commentators on the world oil situation. His comments are especially relevant to the discussion about rising oil prices in Hawai‘i today.

Audio of Jeff Rubin’s talk at the most recent ASPO conference.

From his blog:

…The real story behind triple digit oil prices is not the threat of supply shocks, but the sheer, unrelenting rise in world oil demand. Already closing in on 90 million barrels a day, the quick rebound in world oil consumption to new record highs demonstrates the global economy can’t grow without burning greater amounts of oil.

No matter how many rabbits the oil industry can pull out of its hat, be it tar sands from Alberta or shale oil from the Bakkens, supply just can’t seem to keep pace – at least not at the prices most consumers can afford to pay. That is the message that triple digit prices keeps telling us.

If the global economic expansion, troubled as it may be, continues, we will see even higher oil prices in 2012. But what does that say about the sustainability of growth?

And even if there is growth, what is the pace? Read the whole post here.

Jeff Rubin explains why he quit his job as Chief Economist at CIBC World Markets. In Hawai‘i, we call it kuleana.

After twenty years as Chief Economist for a North American investment bank, it was time for me to seek a larger audience for the story I needed to tell.

My predictions of steadily rising oil prices over the last decade, including my call for $100-per-barrel oil by 2007, had flown in the face of conventional wisdom.

Among other things, my track record on predicting rising oil prices demonstrated that the traditional laws of supply and demand were no longer working for one of the economy’s most basic and essential commodities. And when they stopped working, the consequences for the economy would be severe.

It wasn’t subprime mortgages but triple-digit oil prices that brought down the world economy.

And unless that economy started to wean itself off an ever-depleting supply of affordable oil, there would be other recessions to follow as economic recoveries would simply push oil prices right back into triple-digit range. But weaning our economy off oil meant, at the same time, making fundamental changes in the way we live.

This is not the kind of message investment banks want their chief economists delivering these days, to either governments or investors. But the urgency of this message grows with every passing day.

On March 31, 2009, I resigned my position as Chief Economist and Managing Director of CIBC World Markets to deliver this message in my book, Why Your World Is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization.

Jeff Rubin was the Chief Economist at CIBC World Markets for 20 years. He was one of the first economists to accurately predict soaring oil prices back in 2000 and is now one of the world’s most sought-after energy experts. He lives in Toronto.