From Disappeared News by Henry Curtis
Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) has asked the Hawai`i Public Utilities Commission to approve the HECO-Aina Koa Pono Biofuel Supply Contract (Docket 2011-0005). According to HECO, the technology that Aina Koa Pono will use has never been commercially proven.
On August 23, 2011 the Consumer Advocate filed their Statement of Position in the regulatory proceeding.
The Consumer Advocate asked questions: “Are there available options that can be considered as an alternative to the Supply Contract? What are the costs of those available options as compared to the Supply Contract?” (p. 23)
Considering alternatives makes sense because at this time the PUC and Consumer Advocate are reviewing a proposal by Puna Geothermal Ventures (Docket 2011-0040) to expand baseload geothermal energy using closed loop technology whereby their are no air emissions. PGV has proposed a price that is 50% of the Aina Koa Pono price. One half of the price for proven technology.
The Consumer Advocate then answered their questions by ignoring the geothermal option: “Thus, at this time, it appears that the Companies’ generating units are the primary feasible alternative to providing grid services.” (p. 27)
The Consumer Advocate then elaborated on what the term “reasonable” means:
“The Consumer Advocate believes that the initiation and consideration of an environmental assessment (“EA”) process pursuant to HRS §343-5 and any subsequent determination of whether there may be any significant effects on the environment which may necessitate an EIS is not within the Commission’s statutory authority. The Commission’s authority in the instant proceeding is confined to determining the reasonableness of the terms provided within the proposed contract between the HECO Companies and Aina Koa as it relates to the determination of the utility’s revenue requirement and resultant impact on applicable rates.” (p. 49)
Finally, the Consumer Advocate adopted unsubstantiated HECO allegations that
“It has been recognized in various forums that while Oahu has the largest customer base of the electric utility companies, Oahu does not have some of the potential energy resources that the other islands have.” (p. 43)
Note from MT: The Consumer Advocate also appears not to consider decentralized solutions which would put more money in the pockets of the rate payers.
Comment(1)-
Karen Chun says
August 27, 2011 at 9:11 amThis so-called “renewable” resource which just substitutes and even more expensive imported oil (palm) for fossil oil is so typical of how for-profit utilities attempt to bamboozle ratepayers into thinking they’re being sustainable when, in reality, the utility is encouraging one of the least sustainable practices.
With vast tracks of Malaysian rain forest being burned (so much that it is visible from satellites and casts a pall of choking smoke over a huge portion of the country) to make way for palm plantations, this is a very, very bad idea.
And rate payers will see their utility bills skyrocket for nothing.
Problem is: HECO can’t make money if they encourage true sustainability which is conservation and distributed solar and [small] wind. These are the very things that would lower rate payer bills, lower CO2, lower pollution….but they’d also lower HECO’s profits.
Hence HECO’s exploitive plans such as imported palm oil and Big Wind.