������Ƶ

Hawaii residents regularly hear that the state has the nation’s “most aggressive” clean energy policy.

Lt. Gov. Brian Schatz repeated that claim to the crowd at the last month.

“We have the most aggressive public policy in clean energy in the nation,” said Schatz. “If we are going to get to 70 percent clean energy, we need everything and everyone.”

Hawaiian Electric Co.’s says the same thing:

“Achieving these goals, the most aggressive clean energy target in the nation and perhaps the world, will take continued unity of effort among individuals, families, businesses, institutions (like schools and hospitals) and state and local government.”

But the straightforward statements mask a complicated situation. Determining whether it’s true is nearly impossible. Civil Beat found numerous differences in the way that states define “clean energy.” Pennsylvania includes “clean coal” technology, for instance, while other states don’t include hydroelectric power.

There is no national definition or standards to judge Hawaii against.

Schatz explained why his statement was true in an email to Civil Beat, listing the following reasons:

1. The Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative calls for 70 percent clean energy by 2030, with 40 percent coming from renewable energy and 30 percent coming from energy efficiency.
2. This is all in Hawaii Revised Statutes – in other words these are not simply policy statements, they are law.
3. The PUC has established monetary penalties for falling short.
4. Maine has a similar law on electricity side, but nothing (so far) for energy efficiency.
5. While state laws change frequently, I’m not aware of any other state (with the above noted exception of Maine on the electricity generation side) with a similarly aggressive law, including penalties for noncompliance.

We are interpreting Schatz’s view as this: Hawaii has set a high goal – 40 percent from renewable sources by 2030 as well as a 30 percent cut in energy usage – which is backed up by law and enforceable with penalties. He thinks Hawaii beats Maine, which is also considered to have a strong energy policy.

Peter Rosegg, spokesman for Hawaiian Electric, also defended the statement, saying by email that it was “well justified.” He said that Hawaii’s policy is stronger than that of Maine and California.

We compared Hawaii to other states based on the three key elements Schatz has identified:

– the goal of generating a specified percentage of electricity from renewable energy sources and by what year

– the goal of reducing energy consumption by a certain percentage and by what year

– the concept of penalties for utilities that don’t meet state goals

What we found is that some states are more aggressive than Hawaii in some areas but less in others. Generally, Hawaii is among the top states with strong policy mandates. But it’s difficult to say that Hawaii or any other state is the “most aggressive.”

Civil Beat used data from the U.S. Department of Energy, the , the , and also called states with strong mandates to get a better sense of the way things worked. While comprehensive data exists for all the states, some discrepancies and errors were found across databases making the fact check even more difficult.

Renewable Energy

Hawaii’s policy, signed into by Gov. Linda Lingle in 2009, is to derive 40 precent of electricity sales from renewable energy sources in 2030. The utilities must also reach benchmarks of 15 percent renewable energy in 2015 and 25 percent in 2020.

Overall, Hawaii and Maine have the highest renewable energy mandate of all the states with 40 percent power generation from renewable sources — at some point. However, other states are seeking to get there more quickly and are striving to achieve a greater percentage from renewable sources sooner than 2030.

In New York, the is 29 percent by 2015. In California, the goal is 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 and in Colorado it’s 30 percent. Minnesota ties with Hawaii, at 25 percent in 2020.

Maine’s goal is 40 percent by 2020.

However, as Rosegg pointed out, Maine’s law can be a bit deceiving. The state had a mandate of 30 percent for the past decade even though about half of the state’s electricity already came from sources such as biomass and hydroelectricity. A 2007 law required utility companies to increase renewable energy sources by one percent beginning in 2008.¹

It’s not an apples to apples comparison, and the way that some states calculate renewable energy generation can get very complex.²

Energy Efficiency Standards

It gets even more complicated when it comes to .

Hawaii has a strong energy efficiency requirement to reduce electricity use by 30 percent by 2030. It’s difficult to compare Hawaii with other states because most states only extend targets a few years into the future and there are different methods by which states calculate energy efficiency.

Top states for energy efficiency include Maine, which has a policy to by 2020 – a greater reduction than Hawaii in a shorter period of time. New York aims to reduce electricity use by 15 percent by 2015 and Colorado’s goal is a 11.5 percent reduction by 2020. Arizona requires a 22 percent energy savings by 2020.³

Penalties

Whether electric utilities are penalized for not meeting energy standards plays an important part in determining whether state energy policies actually have teeth.

Here is where Hawaii falls short of other states. Hawaii intends to fine utilities $20 per megawatt hour for not meeting their targets. In other states, such as California, Oregon and Texas, the penalty is $50 per mwh.⁴

States waive mandates in the event of extreme circumstances, such as a natural disaster that wipes out transmission lines.

In Hawaii, the 11 exemptions are quite lenient. The utility can be excused from penalties – at the discretion of the Public Utilities Commission – in cases of weather-related damage, natural disasters, mechanical failures and labor strikes. Lapses in tax credits for renewable energy projects, renewable energy companies failing to meet contractual obligations, a lack of cost-effective resources, an inability to obtain permits and land use approvals and “other events of a similar nature” also give local utilities a way to sidestep enforcement of the goal.

Some states have penalties for failing to meet conservation goals, too. In Washington, utilities must determine what is achievable in regards to energy efficiency for two-year intervals. If they don’t meet targets they are fined $50 mwh. Hawaii’s Public Utilities Commission is currently reviewing whether there will be any fines if energy efficiency mandates aren’t met.

Bottom Line

It can be difficult to compare states, and as Schatz points out states are constantly revising laws.

But based on a review of the data, Civil Beat concludes that the assertion that Hawaii has the most aggressive clean energy requirements in the country is mostly true. Hawaii certainly has ambitious goals when it comes to renewable energy and energy efficiency that rival states like California and Maine, often hailed as national leaders.

However, Hawaii’s relatively weak penalties take some of the wind out of the word “aggressive.” It might be better to qualify the assertion a bit. How about Hawaii has one of the most agressive clean energy programs in the country?
Renewable Energy Map

Energy Efficiency Map