������Ƶ

PEOPLE! Did you see the Big News? Our very own Star-Advertiser says that Big Wind is starting to make Big Sense!

How much sense? Are you ready? Sit down, please, because it is exactly … $2.80. That’s per household, people. Every YEAR!

This fact did not appear in the SA article, that appeared on 11/1/12 and carried the inartful tag line “A new UHERO study assesses the impact of proposed projects on Lanai and Molokai.” While as a thoughtful reader you might think that the article will be about the impact to those islands, it barely mentions them, nor does it provide a link to the study itself, identify who paid for it, or mention that a co-author of the study, Paul Bernstein, is a former HECO .

Instead, the SA article says (that the UHERO study says) that the economic impact of Big Wind across the state would be “positive” and would “create jobs, generate spending, and reduce oil imports and cut emissions.” These are Big Claims for Big Wind, but, unfortunately, there was no mention of the actual impact to every household in Hawaii, the $2.80 part.

About a nanosecond later, the SA seized on its own article to print a hyperbolic editorial, “” on 11/2/12. It repeats the jobs, spending, and reduction claims, but, unfortunately again also omits any mention of the $2.80 per household.

So where did I find this Big Benefit of $2.80? Well, there’s the synopsis of the , conducted by UHERO (Economic Research Organization at UH) Economist Makena Coffman. The SA article acknowledges that the study is not complete, has not been published, and the article is an “early look” at some of the study’s findings. The SA Editorialist presents it as a finished product. Why am I not surprised?

Now, you all know I really, really like Economists (“Access to the Grid is Key in Energy Debate“) since they are so much smarter than I am. So I decided to compare the SA article and the SA editorial to the study synopsis itself.

First the “jobs” claim. Try as I might, the word “jobs” simply doesn’t appear in the UHERO synopsis at all. I’m guessing, though, that Big Wind is not a Big Jobs creator (SA hype notwithstanding), since the ubiquitous R. Alm from HECO told folks on Lanai several years ago that Big Wind is “not a jobs creator.” And HECO wouldn’t lie to us.

How about the “generating spending” claim? Not a whisper in Coffman’s synopsis, but I guess that’s where the $2.80 comes into play? Imagine what you can do with $2.80 a year! For you AND your family!

The SA also cites the synopsis for the grand notion that Big Wind will “reduce oil imports and cut emissions.” The synopsis itself, thankfully, is very specific: the estimated 4 percent reduction in GHG emissions appears to be limited to the “electric sector.” I take this to mean that existing outdated power plants emitting lots of nasty stuff will benefit from the pillage of Lanai and Molokai, perhaps to avoid looming EPA compliance requirements?

So what of the SA’s claim that Big Wind will reduce oil imports? The UHERO synopsis actually says that Big Wind can serve as a “hedge” against “potentially rising and volatile fuel prices, including biofuel prices.” A “potential hedge”! Against “biofuel” prices! Why didn’t I think of that? Lanai and Molokai can feel really, really good about giving up acres and acres of their land – permanently – along with the loss of their tourism income, cultural sites and property values, because the price of biofuels might “potentially rise”! Who knew?

Next, waxing ever more eloquent with each paragraph, the SA editorial says Coffman’s “study” (although not complete), is “in agreement with other studies,” and is the “latest of numerous optimistic assessments of the ‘Big Wind’ plan.” Our happy Editorialist then points to the 2010 Wind Integration Study by UH Natural Energy Institute for the proposition that Big Wind “would account for 25% of renewable sources to produce 40% of the state’s energy by 2030.” (I have no idea what this means.) Fortunately, Coffman’s synopsis is much more precise: Big Wind could fill “about 10% of the State’s energy needs in 2030,” if a number of other economic assumptions prove accurate. And Coffman is careful to point out that this 10% by 2030 does not in any way involve the 60% of fossil fuel consumption “which remains oil-dominated.”

Our Editorialist then opines (that Coffman’s “study” proves) that Big Wind is SUCH a good deal that those Big Developers targeting Lanai and Molokai need to “outline a strong array of givebacks that will truly benefit these communities,” and “the electric company would be foolish not to provide significant cost reductions” for ratepayers on Lanai and Molokai.

Please. Can we just stop it? The Public Utilities Commission sets rates, not the utility.

Nonetheless, our Editorialist thinks that folks on Lanai and Molokai, as “affected residents,” need to “be convinced that the tradeoff is worthwhile.”

Trade-off? What trade-off? The $2.80 per year? Per household?

What would “truly benefit” Lanai and Molokai would be to NOT have an undersea cable ravaging the Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. What would truly benefit Lanai and Molokai would be to NOT have the islands’ historic cultural sites destroyed, and endangered birds and bats served up as mincemeat. What would truly benefit Lanai and Molokai would be to become energy independent – which surely will NOT happen with a one-way cable taking their resources to feed Oahu.

One final observation: the SA says (that Coffman says) that technologies like wind “tend to be more cost effective in Hawaii than anywhere in the U.S.” because of the state’s “dependence on oil” and high electricity rates. What Coffman really says is that “Hawaii has one of the most stringent renewable portfolio standards (RPS) policies in the country,” as well as high rates that are “due to dependence on oil for electricity generation.” Translation? Any way you slice it: high RPS = opportunity for developers to cash in = we will all pay for it.

I have a friend who said she was so upset by the SA article that she emailed Dr. Coffman data from – they’ve been building industrial wind turbines for years and years, after all – that show a net loss of jobs and a negative effect on European economies; the data resulted in a recommendation from the Texas Public Policy Foundation to repeal that state’s RPS. (This is a must read.)

But hey, even though the real cost of the cable and two industrial-scale wind projects that will decimate Lanai and Molokai are not mentioned in either the SA or the UHERO synopsis, I guess the $2.80 windfall per household, per year, reflects some estimate, somewhere, of the real cost of all three.

Except, of course, for those pesky externalities: the “real” costs to Lanai and Molokai.

I want to personally send many thanks to Dr. Coffman, who said, according to the SA, that the conversation about Big Wind has been a “long” one and a “necessary” one. She thinks the UHERO study “can help inform that conversation.”

She has no idea just how long and how necessary this conversation will be. Or how fully the $2.80 “informs” us.
The full and completed UHERO study will be available sometime, in an unidentified economic journal, published and paid for by, well, someone. But we can all rest easy. I’m sure the Star Advertiser will stay right on top of this one, just for the sake of accurate reporting and editorializing.

About the author: Sally Kaye, a full time resident of Lana`i, is an editor and former prosecutor.

Community Voices aims to encourage broad discussion on many topics of community interest. It’s kind of a cross between Letters to the Editor and op-eds. We do not solicit particular items and we rarely turn down submissions. This is your space to talk about important issues or interesting people who are making a difference in our world. Columns generally run about 800 words (yes, they can be shorter or longer) and we need a photo of the author and a bio. We welcome video commentary and other multimedia formats. Send to news@civilbeat.com.