 energy and environment in the 2023 legislative session here at Hawaii NA. I'm Jay Fidel. This is Think Tech. We're here on Energy 808, The Cutting Edge with Henry Curtis of Life in the Land. Welcome to the show, Henry. Aloha, Jay. So here we are. Let's catch up with you. There's so much to catch up on. And I feel that Think Tech ought to follow energy as close as it possibly can. And you're a great person to follow it with. So tell us what's going on. Last time we were together, we talked about Ho Ho Nua. What's going on with Ho Ho Nua? Ho Ho Nua, the briefs by the Public Utilities Commission to hear and life of the land have been shifted back 30 days. So it's now due December 14th at the Supreme Court. The consumer advocate might also ask for that same date for themselves. The reply brief by Ho Ho Nua would then be filed on December 28th. The Supreme Court would then hold oral arguments probably at the end of January or the beginning of February. And the decision would probably come out before Mike Wilson steps down in April. You know, 70 years of age rule, eh? Yes. Well, that doesn't really work well sometimes. So what's at stake here? What do they have to decide? What are the prospects? The Supreme Court has to decide if the Public Utilities Commission fully analyzed the situation and properly rejected the Ho Ho Nua proposal. We're confident that it's going to happen because even if you believe only Ho Ho Nua's argument that the only thing on the table is greenhouse gases, their emissions are so great compared to anybody else's that it dwarps, that they overwhelm everybody else. And it's simply not a wise policy greenhouse gas wise. It would also raise rates for all Big Island residents, which is not something that we favor. Yeah, it seems like pretty clear, doesn't it? Seems clear to me what should happen here. Well, let's see, let's follow it. You and me and others, let's follow it and see what happens to the public or to know every step of the way. Okay, what else is going on, Henry? I mean, I'm sure you have on the news, you're swimming in energy, so to speak, and environment. There are two other major proceedings that the Public Utilities Commission right now. One is HECO's proposal to harden the grid, to spend almost $200 million to make the grid withstand extreme weather events. The other is to decarbonize the gas company, Honolulu Hawaii Gas. So those are two major proceedings currently underway. Wow, so let's break that down. So, okay, spending the money and hardening the grid. Just my reaction, I like to know how you feel and how life on the land feels about that, is that we need to harden the grid because one of these days, every day, Henry, I wake up, I look out my window, and I say, what a beautiful day it is, one day closer to the next storm, the next extreme storm that's gonna blow our islands apart. If you thought Eniki was bad, this could be worse where much further into environmental disaster with climate change. So your thoughts about that, isn't it a good idea? In general, it's a good idea, but it raises some very interesting equity issues. For example, in urban Honolulu, all the lines are underground. So you want to put in devices, for example, and underground connections to make sure you can detect if water's flowing in or not. But beyond Honolulu, the outer areas of Oahu, all the lines are overhead. So hardening would mean replacing wooden poles with giant massive steel poles. And the question is, is it equitable to further underground here and further build a massive overhead system there? So that's one issue. Another issue that we're concerned with is, if you want to make sure that transmission lines don't go down, but what happens to these solar farms and the wind farms and the hydroelectric farms, facilities, do they survive a hurricane or an extreme weather event? Because if they don't survive, it doesn't matter whether you have transmission lines or not. So, and a third thing is, since we're going to be building more and more renewables, which systems do we harden? Do we want to harden lines into areas that are going to have solar and going to have wind? And if so, how do we predict which areas will get it? Harry, so my reaction on that is, how about going step by step? You know, we don't have to have the whole enchilada right away, do we? Why don't we break it down a little bit? Why? Why do I say that? To get started, to start hardening something somewhere because we need to harden. This storm that I wake up to thinking about in the morning could happen any day. That is very true. And so Hawaiian Electric has proposed a almost $200 million first phase that will occur over five years, and then additional hardening after that. We're not sure what the total package is or how long it will take, but HECO basically wants to be able to have enough transmission lines to be able to survive a category four hurricane. You know, if I were governor, that's not likely to happen, by the way. I don't want to be clear. If I were governor and I woke up at the morning with this level of concern, I'd be on the phone all day, trying to get things happening because I would really worry about the destruction of our economy. It's not just energy, but energy leads to everything else. And by the way, it leads to public safety. If I give you a blackout at last, you know, so for a week or two, I can guarantee there'll be a lack of public safety. So everything is at risk. Therefore, you know, do what you can. And if it crossed my desk, if this was a five-year first phase plan, I would say five years. Let me get on the phone to DPP and see what can be done. How do you feel about that? It's interesting because you want to harden the system to withstand a storm that's coming and you don't know how severe that storm will be. So if you really overbuild, then you're wasting people's money. But if you underbuild, then everything collapses. And it's sort of this guessing game of how much you have to build out. And if we have today's taxpayers pay so that tomorrow's taxpayers will be saved, there's also another issue involved. So it's complex. I think Hawaii is moving in the right direction, but we need to have a lot more data. And therefore, LifeLand and the consumer advocate and others are beginning to ask questions about exactly what the nature of the hardening is. What do they say? Helion. Yes. Well, let's talk about gas. Gas is really important on a global basis. And I'm not saying good important. It's not a good important important, but it is important. So this initiative you talked about would be to decarbonize Hawaii gas. Full disclosure, I get Hawaii gas. I like Hawaii gas. And I worry about Hawaii gas in the future. I worry about turning on my range and not having any gas. This is a problem. So how do you decarbonize Hawaii gas? One way of decarbonizing gas is to use more renewable hydrogen in the fuel mix. Now, pipes can handle a certain amount of hydrogen and home appliances can handle a certain amount. So you need to make sure you can add hydrogen without frying people's systems. And I need to put a caveat on. This proceeding is looking at the regulated section of Hawaii gas, which is gas in a pipeline. It is not looking at the unregulated section, which is trucked gas. And it's not looking at other companies that also import gas, but use trucks rather than pipes because only the pipes are regulated just like transmission lines in electricity. This suggests that Hawaii gas can bypass the issue by initiating tank gas instead of piped gas for future projects. Yes, I think that's a serious threat. And one bill we'll be introducing in this next session is that all trucked gas should also be regulated by the PUC because they all use public highways and transportation is regulated by the PUC. And therefore everybody should be regulated rather than allowing people to bypass regulation. And there's only like three or four large gas companies. So it's not like we're adding a whole bunch of people to the mix, but we're adding three or four companies. How does this all play into the future? You know, gas, the whole idea about gas seems to be rooted somewhere in ancient history. Is gas got a future in the state, Henry? That's a huge question. I'm not sure Hawaii gas about 30 years ago proposed that what the Public Utilities Commission should look at is comparing electricity and gas sort of in one proceeding to look at how they, how you can regulate both to maximize the benefit for the companies and for the consumer. Okay, so what would we have to do legally in order to decarbonize Hawaii gas and similar gas companies? The simplest way is saying that any major importer of gas into the state that is going to then transport the gas to retailers on the highways are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. The Public Utilities Commission should be able to regulate all major gas utilities that are using our highways to deliver the gas. And by having everybody on the same page, it will allow a uniform reduction across companies. You know, a uniform reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. You know, and maybe I'm not following it close enough, but does Hawaii gas and its product and its infrastructure help or relate in any way to our move to hydrogen? You were saying to use hydrogen, you know, instead of carbon-based gas, but also, you know, how can Hawaii gas or other gas companies actually participate in the move to hydrogen vehicles, for example? I'm not sure about that. Certainly we need more alternative vehicles of all types and finding ways of finding renewable energy. A renewable hydrogen is important. Most hydrogen in this country, 95% of all the hydrogen made in the United States is made from fossil fuel. So we really need to dramatically increase the use of renewable energy to generate hydrogen rather than making it fossil fuel-based. You know, I'm thinking, no, Henry, and maybe, you know, this is speculative, of course, but I'm thinking that, you know, one of the big problems about going to hydrogen for vehicles is the distribution of the hydrogen gas. The tanks of gas, what have you, whatever methodology is involved. And that's, you know, that's a problem because now, for example, you know, the hydrogen buses, they got to go to a hydrogen filling station and there aren't many, you know, there's just a handful around the state, maybe. If we wanted to get serious about hydrogen cars, which in some ways have a benefit over straight electric, we need a distribution system and query whether somebody like, you know, Hawaii Gas or other gas companies could participate in that distribution. What do you think? I think as we have seen with the electric cars and the fact that there are so few public charging stations and it's taken so long to bring the electric car infrastructure into place, hydrogen would follow that, but it would take many more years. And that actually takes me to my next question to you. You know what, the Hawaiian Electric is putting in a couple of new initiatives to try to incentivize electric vehicles from charging stations. And it has been, you know, to my knowledge, it has been pretty much the only organization that has incentivized and actually built instructed charging stations in at least Oahu, I don't know about the other islands. And this gives me some concern because what it tells you is that that as a matter of entrepreneurial, you know, development, we do not have a lot of people out there who are willing and able, who have the funding to build a hydrogen charging station that will turn a profit, you know, instead of a loss and that will be able to continue and be sustainable as a business. People aren't doing that. Investors aren't doing that. Entrepreneurs are not doing that. So you see Hawaiian Electric step in with whatever level of charging station they feel they can handle. And they got to get PUC approval and it's a hassle. So I'm wondering where this is all going with the charging stations. If we don't have sufficient charging stations and we have range anxiety, even if the new cars have greater range, it's a downer, it's a bummer for people who are thinking about buying electric cars. And that takes me to the larger question, Henry, is here we have Hawaiian Electric standing on that notion, doing stuff on that notion. And I feel it's just a gestalt feeling for me, but I don't feel there's a lot of action going on in the energy sector these days, where we're building and moving ahead and developing things and doing new technologies and expanding actually affirmatively, seriously expanding our use of clean energy. Am I right? How do you feel about it? I think you're absolutely right. I think the pandemic slowed everything down. I think supply chain disruptions have really impacted everyone. And I think there's also a lack of legislative, say interim goals of where we should be. So for example, transportation, we should be a hundred percent renewable in 2045. We can be 99% un-renewable in 2044. That doesn't make much sense. We need some real sharp goals 2025, 2030 to really put into place where we wanna be and then the infrastructure and the markets will flow. Amen to that, well put for sure. So the question is going sailing into 2023, presumably the legislature has money come again as it did this year. I don't wanna say money to burn, but money. And the question is, what should it do? I mean, bills have to be put in in December. Initiatives have to be fashioned among the legislators and constituents who introduce bills. Sometimes bills that are truly, truly or finally cockamamie bills that get introduced by the thousands wasting everyone's time. But what can the legislature, what should the legislature do to establish these interim goals and move the needle ahead? Cause we need to do stuff now. I think they need to set firm goals, interim goals on where we're going to be and then to fund the agency sufficiently to get the regulations and the approvals in place to get there. I think one of the things that we're also gonna be looking at is how to decrease the amount of stuff going into our landfills through either extended producer responsibility or other recycling or other things because we're running out of space in our landfills and that's gonna be another mess on our hands just as cesspools have to be dealt with. So you're, but you're saying that it's not just energy and clean energy and all that, developing interim goals and incentives, what have you, it's environment and I know life of the land is very interested in environment. So before we get into the specifics, what is the state of Hawaii's state of environment these days? Is it attending to its environment? And in general, what should be happening? I think we're moving in the correct direction generally but we are going too slow and we really need to put our foot on the pedal and move faster. And that also requires collaboration because putting projects in the wrong place just creates delays. We all need to get there together as a team rather than fighting along the way. Okay, big problem. A problem for you and a problem for the initiative in general is that it takes too long to actually get these projects underway even if we do have the money, which is never a guarantee. Even if we do have the political will which is never a guarantee. So query, how about the process? You know, I'm very concerned for example about the DPP process. There have been so many articles most recently in civil beat where it said that without corruption, it takes three years to get a building permit for a residential project. What, you're kidding me? Three years and then if you have corruption, then it's much faster. Really. What kind of metric is that? So, what's going on with the delays in these project? It's not, you know, you or other, you know, community-based organizations because you could act pretty quickly, but sometimes maybe many times you submit your data, your position and then it gets有一放 down somehow, what happens? The powering pass call task force Looked at the process from the time the PUC approved something to the time it goes online, and that could take five years. So that, that task force just looked at Oahu, but it really needs to expand statewide and say, how do we get agencies to move faster without cutting out the community processes involved without cutting out necessary steps to monitor the environment. But how can we cut out a lot of the waste along the way and move faster. And I think that requires a comprehensive overview of the entire regulatory process. One of the issues, for example, is if the public utilities commission agrees to a price that a renewable energy company sells electricity to ego. And then the county upgrades the property because it's now being used for an industrial use as opposed to agricultural use, and therefore charges the renewable energy company more, and they can no longer meet their requirements to deliver energy at the rate they said under the PUC. We need to figure all that out in advance and working together. I think the powering past cold task force has started that initiative, but it has a long ways to go. What, what is it in the process you know Hawaii has really infamous for delay. What, what can we do about the process to make it move right along and I, and I'm thinking it doesn't matter what side of the issue you're on I'm thinking. I'm thinking of monarchy monarchy is at least theoretically still in a waiting state. It's a waiting finality. It never gets to finality one way or the other say yes they know but let's you know finish the issue and move on. And that's that's a statement of the modern. Legislative and bureaucratic culture of Hawaii. How can we fix that not only for monarchy but for everything. Let me give you an example. There's a battery being installed in Kapolei by Hiko a massive energy battery, and it has over 300 concrete pads on the ground DPP required a permit for each concrete pad. Rather than looking at it as a whole and saying this is one project. They wanted 300 permits. That kind of thing needs to be streamlined right out of the process. That's really truly I'm glad you mentioned it because that's ridiculous. All the 300 are essentially identical. So what are they doing and making work and delay and so if you were going to solve that kind of problem with let's think together Henry. What would you do legally what would you do to tell DPP no no you can't do that. You've got to do better. How would you fix it. I think the power and pass call task force is bringing together people or agencies state and federal agencies, regulators, utilities and and the community to figure out how to make the process work smoother. This is not taking away from a project. These are projects that are approved. It's how you get an approved project online and that's having more discussions and more two way dialogues is key. I'm with you on that except that I think sometimes dialogue is a great way to delay things. In other words, if I don't like the project that I get into the dialogue and I slow it down. And I may not be completely sincere in my efforts to dialogue the thing to death. And we could talk about projects that have gone that way. But how do you how do you fix that. I realize at the end of the day it's a matter of culture and good faith, you know, bargaining negotiation expression of views and so forth. But how do we fix that legally and mechanically so that we don't run into silly delays. I like the 300 concrete pads and like other other projects and like DPP in general. I mean, they got a reputation that's national already and nobody seems to be able to fix it. I think get working it out upfront so everything works smoothly is a lot better than fumbling each project. So I think it's great to have the dialogue upfront and figure out how to work the system more effectively involve the State Energy Office, the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, the PUC, the consumer advocate communities, regulators, developers, utilities, get everybody at the table, because then we can figure out how to get the system to work better. Well, suppose I said, look, all you guys, all you constituents, all interested parties come in the room, express yourselves. And here's the procedure like an accord. Here's the procedure, you know, file your paper, your amicus, you know, let's see it all. And you have X period of days or weeks to do that. And at the end of that time, the authorized agency, whatever agency it is will make a decision. And that'll be that. Of course, that's subject to litigation. Everything is subject to litigation. But on the other hand, wouldn't it be more expeditious to do that and to contain the dialogue to a period of time and a procedural system where everybody, you know, must speak and even rebut within a period of time. In general, yes. But if an agency, for example, is missing half of its staff and therefore slows down a project, the project shouldn't automatically be approved due to government inadequacy. So there needs to be safeguards so that the streamlining works efficiently rather than bypassing proper processes. I think what I hear you saying is there ought to be a close look, maybe a reform of the Administrator Procedures Act in this state where we could lay down rules that would, you know, help move things ahead. Likewise, the procurement, the procurement code, everybody talks about how much of a slowdown you get on the procurement code. And finally, the Sunshine Law. A lot of government agencies cannot have a brain session without going through all the process in the Sunshine Law, which does two things. It delays them, but it also sort of gives them, it quarterizes their ability to do creative thinking, and they don't. So you don't get a creative solution. I think all of these things could be modified or at least examined and reformed in order to change the culture. And I hadn't thought of it until this discussion with you, Henry, but you've given me some ideas, dude. What do you think about my ideas? I think the one agency that I would start with is the state legislature to really overhaul them so that conflicts of interest are clearly identified. I've only ever seen one legislator walk off the floor and say, I have a conflict. I can't vote. There needs to be much better reporting on lobbying and who's doing what and when the conference committees have to be public discussions. So we need to start with the state legislature. And of course, they are not going to want to deal with that issue. No, they're not. But listen, we have, we have a new governor coming soon. And the bets are on Josh Green, of course. You know, how does that affect all of this, Henry? How does it affect the initiatives that you and I've been talking about? How does it affect the possibility of reform? You know, clearing up the culture, so to speak. Can a governor do that? The governor can. But in my last conversation with the governor on an energy issue, he said, I'm not going to tell you what I'm thinking. So we have to really wait and see. Yeah, the governor you're talking about is not the coming governor, but the current governor. So Governor, if Green gets elected, I should specify, I asked Green a question on energy and he said, I will not answer that until after I'm elected. So that's a problem. It's a problem. It's a good political answer, but it doesn't give you comfort. Not the PUC. You know, over in the past, how many months we have a, you know, what I would consider a pretty profound change in the composition of the PUC. How do you see that? And how will it affect, you know, energy decisions going forward? The way things work is the PUC is pretty much at the center of a lot of the things we're talking about. How does the danger in commissioners affect that? Certainly we're moving from a public utilities commission that had decades of experience to a PUC that is fairly new. And therefore they will go their own way and it's unclear what direction they're going in. But they're certainly at the center of it. But where they're going and how they're going to do it is anybody's guess right now. Okay, an industry, investment, entrepreneurs. You know, I mentioned before that I thought there was really not enough push from industry and investors, entrepreneurs, kids coming out of UH, out of the Schuyler College of Business and the like. Is there a reasonable pathway for them to participate in the energy industry? That is the clean energy industry. And for that matter, you know, agriculture, farming and environment, you know, the treasure of our land and our environment. Do we have a quality workforce, an entrepreneurial development force that is appropriately funded and incentivized? And is there anything we have to do to bring that up to a level that will give us some real product in the future? We're in, certainly, I think the center of a maelstrom or a hurricane where it's unclear where we're moving and we could move in a very sustainable direction in the near future, or we could totally go the opposite way. I think I don't have a crystal ball. And I think we're definitely in a period of rapid change, but I don't know where we're heading. That's a really good statement for pretty much everything on the horizon, Henry. I don't necessarily do what you do, but I feel exactly the same way for everybody. We don't have a crystal ball. We don't know what's going to happen even in 10 days time. We don't know where the country is going and we certainly don't know where the state is going. And what we need right now is to, A, have strong leadership and, B, get together on things and develop ways to get it done. And I'm so glad that you're here with me to talk about it. Thank you so much, Henry. Henry Curtis of Life of the Land. You'll be more. You'll hear more from Henry. Aloha, Henry. Aloha, Jay. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at think.kawaii.com. Mahalo.