������Ƶ

Dear Legislators:

You might have noticed that Lanai voices against Big Wind have been pretty quiet lately.

This is because we’ve been assured that Big Wind on Lanai is no longer a substitute for what should be the state’s energy policy. Even Neil said so when he was here on June 29, 2013, and met with 25 residents at our Senior Center. (“Don’t worry, people, it’s not going to happen!”)

So you can imagine my surprise to see Big Wind/Lanai a centerpiece of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC)-sponsored “” at the Capitol on January 9.

The briefing was called so a “Team” from General Electric (GE) could explain the results of a “Hawaii RPS Roadmap Study,” an assessment of the utilities’ (HECO, MECO, HELCO and KIUC) progress in achieving the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS).

Yes, Elected Officials, yet again another study – for which Hawaii Natural Energy Institute (HNEI) will pay GE $850,000 – to see if the utilities can meet the RPS with lots of new wind, solar, and quite the focus on a one-way cable from Lanai. They tried to hide it, of course, mapping out a 200 MW cable between Oahu and Lanai while insisting there was “no specific project evaluated.”

Please, GE, for real? Lanai wind and the one-way cable showed up over 20 times in your handouts (at least it did in the version GE/HNEI passed out January 9; “” have been made since then.)

Other “stakeholders” in the audience were HECO staffers, PUC staffers (and ex-PUC staffers who are now HECO staffers), the Consumer Advocate, DBEDT, and folks from the HNEI, which is part of the University of Hawaii, all talking to themselves about an electricity future that is, well — highly unlikely.

Not that these stakeholders would admit to such a thing. Instead, PUC staffer Jay Griffin (who used to work for HNEI) reviewed a recently submitted that confirms the utilities will likely meet their renewable generation targets of 15 percent by 2015 and 25 percent by 2020.

But 40 percent by 2030? Not so clear: Griffin spoke instead of “significant challenges” and “uncertainties,” difficulties in “siting” and “permitting.”

One of Griffin’s statements really caught my eye: “If we do have some inter-island connectivity and generation, we assumed about 200 MW of wind here (read: Lanai) that would significantly cut down the required new generation…”

Since the 200 MW Griffin wants to take from Lanai would in fact be “new” generation, we can assume he is proposing Lanai take it on the chin so Oahu doesn’t have to cover so much of its own “new” generation needs, or use up its own lands. Thanks, Jay.

Anyway, the GE Team reviewed colorful pie charts and busy graphs displaying peaking and cycling units, forecasted energy sales, various cable configurations, and postulated potential savings if we linked ourselves together. Or not. They confirmed that Oahu could meet significant renewable levels on-island (34 percent), no cable needed, and then focused on the proposed “benefits” of a grid-tie to Maui and a one-way extension cord from Lanai.

I didn’t hear any chatter about the fact that Oahu needn’t meet 40 percent renewable generation on its own, but can aggregate with renewable levels on Maui (currently 21 percent) and the Big Island (47 percent), and there was no mention that the PUC has already decided that utility shareholders, not ratepayers, will pay any penalty slapped on the utilities for not meeting the RPS. I guess it’s all about how you frame the conversation.

Of course GE admitted that because the real cost of a one-way cable from Lanai is unknown, we should assume that: “More capital intensive scenarios (such as Big Wind on Lanai) become less attractive as the cost of capital increases.”

Really? I’m so glad we paid the GE Team to share this; I would never have guessed.

As the morning session concluded, Rep. Cynthia Thielen (R- Kailua/Kaneohe) weighed in, pointing out that this GE study (like so many others before it) did not include any renewable firm power, such as wave technology:

“We’re a very scarce land mass, and land is very precious. So, how do you go and do a report ignoring one of Hawaii’s best renewable resources? When one branch of the federal government, the Department of Energy, says Hawaii is ripe for wave energy, why is wave energy not in here? You’ve got money to do this study, it doesn’t have to be narrow. I’m finding [the GE report] very incomplete and very troublesome.”

After lecturing Rep. Thielen on the fact that wave energy is not ready for commercial prime time, HNEI’s Rick Rocheleau assured her he would “throw some wave in.”

The GE Team then admitted that expanding Oahu’s ability to convert its trash to firm power was not included either. No worries, HNEI and GE said, “There’s a lot more to go in the study” and “continued research is necessary.”

I looked to see if any environmental costs analyses or community impacts were included in this “continued research,” or any evidence of the bottom-up planning Rep. McKelvey and others spoke of last legislative session? Apparently not relevant.

Truth be told, Elected Officials, this GE Roadmap study doesn’t look much different than the one for which ratepayers are already repaying HECO to the tune of $4 million, and it’s strikingly similar to many of the results presented in the recently completed – and criticized – Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process, a core focus of which was to consider how and whether the utilities could meet the state’s RPS. You may recall that at the conclusion of the IRP process last May the utility said it doesn’t need Lanai, or an undersea cable to or from anywhere, to meet the RPS. DBEDT opined along similar lines a few weeks later.

Now, the GE Roadmap comes on the heels of at least five other known studies we have paid GE to participate in since 2008: “Sustainable Energy Options/Big Island” (cost unknown); “Maui Wind Integration” (costs redacted); “Oahu Wind Integration” ($473,972); “Hawaii Solar Integration” (your guess?); and the “Oahu-Maui Interconnection Study-Stage 2” ($405,000).

That’s at least $1,728,972 of our tax and rate dollars paid to the GE Team. So far.

And HNEI appears to be doing quite well for itself as well: according to to the Legislature, its budget grew from $2 million in 2001 to over $22 million for 2012-2013. That’s a 1,000 percent increase, if my math is correct. A factoid to keep in the forefront, Legislators, as agencies line up for budget requests this session.

For sure, HNEI is doing some nifty things. But continuing to study and promote Big Wind on Lanai? Perhaps HNEI and GE need to use a little more “imagination at work.”

So we ask you, our Elected Officials, to ask yourselves: is this how we should continue to spend millions of our dollars? Perhaps we should spend those millions on fixing the grid, instead of endlessly studying to fix the grid.

After Neil’s last visit, someone suggested we consider retiring our all-over-town “NO WINDMILLS ON LANAI” signs, since they were no longer necessary. We think we’ll leave them up a while longer, since we are again reading what looks like another taxpayer-funded study that has Big Wind on Lanai as a favored solution.

No matter, the troops are easily charged up, eager to continue to rail against the potential loss of up to one-fourth of our island and its historic cultural sites, to fight to protect and preserve our wildlife and sea life, and insure our energy independence.

Hey HNEI and GE: thanks for the head’s up.

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