Are we making progress toward energy independence? There's good news and bad news
by Rob Parsons
 |
 |
 |
A
few items of interest on the renewable energy (RE) front bubbled to the
surface this week. Since the Energy Expo a month ago, I've been
following a curious cover-up locally by Big Oil. There's also more news
of government bureaucracy stalling forward movement. And, on the plus
side, a promising ruling by the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
that should help give power to the people.
The Good
Following
the lead of top solar and wind producers Spain and Germany, a new PUC
ruling opens the way for homeowners and businesses to produce their own
power and sell excess to the utility, through a mechanism referred to
as a "feed-in tariff" (FIT). Vermont set up a similar system last week,
and Oregon's FIT kicks in next April.
Though the exact rates a
small power producer will be paid still have to be worked out by the
commission, the model will help reduce a lengthy application process
and will provide certainty of payback rate. The rates are expected to
be set high enough to serve as incentive to new electrical providers,
but not so high that ratepayers will be overburdened with much higher
costs.
At present, net-metering programs allow homeowners with
solar photovoltaic systems, for example, to produce excess power,
spinning their meter backwards and reducing their monthly bill as the
energy goes into the utility grid. But under current guidelines, they
can't be compensated for any excess electricity they generate.
Four
RE technologies could qualify for FIT rates: photovoltaic, onshore
wind, concentrated solar thermal and hydroelectric. Solar PV will
likely benefit the most people, since it's most readily available.
Producers
may generate up to 5 megawatts on Oahu, and 2.72 MW on Maui and the Big
Island. Initially, the total amount of FIT projects is limited to 5
percent of the grid's capacity, and will be reviewed again by the PUC
after two years. This should allow the utility time to integrate new
sources into its grid, and even Hawaiian Electric Co. has expressed
support. For the most fossil-fuel dependent state in the U.S., this is
good news.
The Bad
Last Friday, Maui Electric Co.
announced that it's asked the PUC for a 9.7 percent rate increase, to
take effect next year. The average monthly residential electric bill
could go up by nearly $14, while MECO says an additional $28 million in
revenue yearly could be raised. A 3.7 percent rate increase went into
effect in 2007.
MECO is rolling out a $122 million capital
improvement program that looks to support a wide array of maintenance
upgrades, from tree-trimming near utility lines to new and expanded
substations. Modernization of the Ma'alaea Generating Station is also
projected, as is a 100-kilowatt PV system for MECO's Kahului baseyard.
The
drawback in the request is the difficulty for Maui County residents to
participate in the PUC proceedings. Ideally, a series of public
meetings should be held on Maui, Molokai and Lanai to explain the
details of the proposal, and to hear input for alternatives.
Should
the community find MECO plans are lacking in scope or specificity, a
contested case hearing is possible, though that would be a daunting,
time-consuming endeavor. The commission hasn't visited Maui since May
2008, when MECO asked for a small monthly surcharge to finance future,
yet unspecified, renewable energy infrastructure.
On another
forefront, the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism
(DBEDT), the lead agency for implementing the Hawaii Clean Energy
Initiative, recently took a big step backwards regarding public
inclusion in the process. On September 23, I received an e-mail (as a
past attendee of planning sessions in Honolulu) that the draft Hawaii
Bioenergy Master Plan (BEMP) was ready for review, and that comments
must be submitted by October 2.
The Master Plan draft was
linked with ten separate pdf files, totaling 849 pages—yet with just
nine days for the public to review! Larry Geller, on his Disappeared
News blog, elaborated, "The public will have a hard time even reading
the report it is supposed to comment on in the time given. You'd have
to read about 100 pages each day for the next nine days and then rush
out a response." Life of the Land director and renewable energy guru
Henry Curtis called this "top down planning, as if the public doesn't
matter."
But DBEDT's Ted Peck refuted the criticism in a
comment left on Geller's site. "Instead of nine days, the public has
had 16 months," wrote Peck, "and will have 3 more months and of course
plenty of opportunity during next year's session. I believe any
assertion that the process hasn't been and doesn't continue to be
without opportunity for public comment is without merit."
Once
promising as a way to reduce our dependence on petroleum, biofuels and
bioenergy have now lost some of their luster. Costs for local
production in Hawaii may never make it viable, and importations come
with shocking news of ecosystem devastation and human rights violations
in major growing regions such as Central and South America and
Southeast Asia, and rising food costs from the food vs. fuel
controversy.
The Ugly
Last month's Maui County Energy
Expo provided a two-day pep rally and information exchange for RE
enthusiasts. One audience questioner asked panelists if government
could support local RE businesses, so the state's push for renewables
doesn't create a huge influx of Mainland companies moving in to reap
the benefits.
DBEDT Director Ted Liu responded that the
legislature approved not just a preference, but an actual "set aside,"
meaning government agencies must first contract with locally produced
renewables. I watched as Kelly King of Pacific Biodiesel made a beeline
to talk to Liu after he spoke.
King told me that Maui County
recently switched their B-20 (20 percent biodiesel, 80 percent
petroleum diesel) fuel contract for the Wailuku Public Works baseyard
from Maui Oil Company to Maui Petroleum. Instead of using locally
produced Pacific Biodiesel for their B-20 blend, as Maui Oil Company
has for the past four years, Maui Petroleum apparently was importing
biodiesel from an unnamed source.
Liu told King that if that was
true, she could file a protest over the contract. King said she has
contacted the Mayor's Office and Economic Development, but is still
awaiting a response. King told me that while she doubts Maui Petroleum
could import biodiesel for less than the cost of locally produced fuel,
she is concerned over possible predatory pricing from Mainland
companies. "Either way," said King, "the info about the state rule
needs to get out so that other businesses can benefit as well."
Curious
as to where the mysterious imported biodiesel originated, I placed a
call to Maui Petroleum. I was shocked by the response to my inquiry:
"What business is it of yours?" shot back an unidentified man who took
the call.
I explained that I believe it's in the public
interest, especially since taxpayer dollars are involved. "I think we
only have to explain that to the County, because we are doing business
with them," the employee responded before adding, "it's none of your
business."
Earlier this week, I asked Maui Time editor Jacob
Shafer to try his luck at getting the information. As I sat in his
office, the conversation with the Maui Petroleum official was even
shorter. "We're not discussing that with anyone," said a man who didn't
identify himself but sounded like the same employee, before abruptly
hanging up.
It begs the question—what are they trying to hide?
Their evasiveness only heightens suspicions that they're importing
biodiesel from an unscrupulous source: Malaysian palm oil, South
American soybeans or other areas where rainforests have been wiped out,
replaced with mono-crop agribusiness operations covering hundreds of
thousands of acres.
Maui Petroleum: just because you've built a
statewide empire on fossil fuel profits doesn't grant you a free pass.
(We'll keep digging and see if we can get to the bottom of this.) To
use Kelly and Bob King's mantra: "all sustainability is local."