The state’s Consumer Advocate has filed a document with the Public Utilities Commission saying “due to remaining questions and concerns, it is unable to recommend approval” of Honua Ola Bioenergy, the nearly completed biomass power plant in Pepeekeo.
The 53-page document, filed Dec. 28, is in advance of a PUC evidentiary hearing on whether to reconsider a waiver of competitive bidding the PUC granted Hawaiian Electric for a power purchase agreement with Honua Ola.
The PUC later rescinded the waiver on the grounds that the projected average cost of 22 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity over the contract’s 30-year term wasn’t competitive with two approved Big Island battery-plus-storage projects with projected electric costs of 8-9 cents per kilowatt hour.
The PUC said it was “not convinced that granting a waiver for the (Honua Ola) project is justified or in the public interest.”
Honua Ola, which has always contended its power generation model is carbon neutral, appealed the PUC decision to the Hawaii Supreme Court, which remanded the waiver issue back to the PUC, saying greenhouse gas emissions have to be taken into consideration in its decision.
The hearing on the Honua Ola-HELCO contract is scheduled for Jan. 31 to Feb. 3, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. each day. The evidentiary hearing will be held online through Webex. The public can view the proceedings on YouTube’s Public Utilities Commission channel.
“The Consumer Advocate takes note of the fact that (Honua Ola) does represent a renewable energy project that intends to rely on locally produced agricultural biomass (and/or biofuels), at least primarily, which could provide benefits to the island of Hawaii’s agricultural industry,” the document stated. “There are, however, remaining questions about whether the benefits have been adequately supported to assess whether verifiable benefits might exceed the costs.”
According to the document, the Consumer Advocate “intends to continue to assess the project through the evidentiary hearing and is open to accounting for any additional evidence or commitments offered by the applicants.”
Also filing position statements about the project are the petitioners, Honua Ola and Hawaiian Electric, the opponent, Life of the Land, and intervenor, Tawhiri Power.
In its document in opposition, Life of the Land, which appealed PUC’s original granting of the waiver, asserted “that the project would result in long-term environmental and public health costs that are excessively high, the proposed air pollution level is unacceptable, the economic cost is unreasonable and that the proposed power purchase contract is not prudent nor in the public interest.”
Tawhiri Power, a wind farm between Naalehu and Ocean View, said a provision in the agreement that Hawaiian Electric must use a minimum of 10 megawatts of power from Honua Ola whenever the plant is online “will cause renewable generators, such as Tawhiri, to be curtailed if (HECO) refuses to displace its fossil fuel fired generation to accommodate this provision.” Tawhiri also argued the “high price” of Honua Ola’s contract with HECO “will result in higher bills to (HECO’s) ratepayers.”
Tawhiri’s document also raised concerns about Honua Ola’s “impact to the environment and public health in addition to (greenhouse gas) concerns” and whether Honua Ola “can obtain sufficient fuel supply for the 30-year term of the contract without having to source fuel outside of Hawaii.”
Arguing for re-institution of the competitive bidding waiver, Hawaiian Electric said Honua Ola “will reduce the amount of fossil fuel generation and assist in meeting the state’s (renewable portfolio standard), without increasing the amount of as-available, intermittent renewable energy resources on (HECO’s) system.”
Honua Ola commissioned a public survey in December by Anthology Marketing Group. According to the survey’s executive summary, the poll “shows Hawaii Island customers of Hawaiian Electric hold a strong favorable opinion about the Honua Ola Bioenergy project (also known as Hu Honua Bioenergy), regardless of where they live on the island.”
“Among the biggest reasons for this favorability are the project’s ability to stabilize the cost of electricity, diversify the portfolio of renewable energy sources and create jobs,” the summary states.
Honua Ola President Warren Lee on Thursday said he thinks the filings of Hawaiian Electric’s brief and the Consumer Advocate’s “passed each others like ships in the night,” and that the utility’s filings addressed the concerns expressed by the Consumer Advocate.
“We believe that this is a greenhouse gas issue and that you’ve got to do a cradle-to-grave study versus what was approved previously, which was ‘what are the greenhouse gases that are being displaced by replacing fossil-fuel generation from (Hawaiian Electric)?’ So, it’s more extensive and cradle-to-grave — you know, with all the retrofit work that we did, how much carbon dioxide was used to manufacture the steel … and put the steel in place, and all the equipment, including future disposal,” he said. “Cradle-to-grave also means looking at all the trees we’ll be replanting, how much carbon dioxide or (greenhouse gas) emissions are in the harvesting operations, the fertilizing, the planting, the hauling.
“So we feel that the primary item that was remanded on appeal has been satisfactorily answered.”
Email John Burnett at jburnett@hawaiitribune-herald.com.
