 This is the cutting edge energy 808 the cutting edge, and I'm here going solo without my dear friend J. Fidel and I'm just so pleased so very pleased to be with Henry Curtis life of the land who comes right out of the cauldron or the sauna whatever metaphor you're good with Henry choose your own after Accounting four days and a scotch of evidentiary hearings before the Public Utilities Commission Considering the power purchase agreement which has been gosh talk about a long saga has been Before the state before the Commission and one former another for a very long time So that wrapped up today. I watched a fair amount of it I wasn't starting to finish of course like you were being an intervener in the docket And for number one congratulations for you and your team making it through I watched your closing Cats closing earlier today. I watched all the closings because I that's kind of interesting to see where Hours and hours and hours of summary or hours of testimony hours of cross hours of irs Gets boiled down to ten minutes each had ten minutes to do a closing. So Thank you so much Henry for being with me today being with us. So my how you feeling man? I guess that's that's my first question How you feeling? I'm feeling a breath of relief release that it's over Although It was really important to be in and it was really important to prepare for But just thankfully It's over now and we can move on to the next exciting phase of spending three weeks combing through the record to make our final breeze So why don't you just take us through? First the PUC will look over the video and make sure that The video that we're all working off of is sort of the final approved video that would be Separate from the YouTube version. So this will be the official one that we can actually cite The date it was taped the time the witness Etc for using for building our final argument. It's important to recognize that the brief Just is based on all the facts throughout the case and whether one cites the Video recording or some other document. It's all part of the record. So first the PUC will Make an official version of the tape approved it and that will probably be in a couple days and then the five sides will each have three weeks to write a final brief and Submit it to the Commission and then the Commission will have as much time as it's needed to to write their final decision Sorry decision With Jay Griffin being up at the end of June. It's likely the decision will come out in May possibly early June and Then that's that So what what if anything surprised you in the course of these four days then in a scotch as far as I mean There was of course tremendous preparation on the part of all parties. I have to believe and I mean again, I didn't watch for sort of this, but I cut a lot of pretty big chunks of it So I'm really curious to hear what if anything kind of surprised you after all the preparation all the anticipation that you had What surprised me the most is that the who who knew a team of lawyers in Looking at the Supreme Court decision Could not understand the word And D We appealed on three issues One greenhouse gases to clean and healthful environment and three making us in a full party instead of a participant The Supreme Court very carefully in the first two pages of their decision said we were upholding life a land on issue one and List issue two but not issue three. So it's one and two But who who knew it has insisted. It's only one They have said they have given lip service to our right to a clean and helpful environment But assumed that was the same thing as greenhouse gases They have assumed that all other environmental issues are off the table, which is absurd So when correct me if I'm wrong here, and I don't have the language right in front of me when there was the decision in 2020 Which effectively stopped the decision on the part of the Commission to reverse the 2017 decision under Randy Randy Awase that was that approved the PPA, right? And they're subsequently several years later under Jay Griffin The previous approval to move forward under that PPA power purchase agreement was reversed by under the Commission under Jay and his team And that was appealed by the by who know on the parties And the Supreme Court ruled in fact that There should be an evidentiary hearing and that who know was denied that ability or that opportunity that right to an evidentiary hearing and They they used if I'm not mistaken correct me if I'm wrong I think they had five directives in the course of that very short decision That essentially said to the Commission thou shall take these things into account during the course from here on out and I was surprised a little bit Or maybe I shouldn't have been that earlier today in the summaries that there was an explicit mention of those and again Am I correct here? There were five five directives of the Please I I will take your word on it. It's it's bubbling through my mind now, but Yes, and and helco too Which was the result of who know his appeal said go back to the conditions that the court decided in helco one Which was that we that we have a right to look at greenhouse gas emissions And a clean and helpful environment helco two said there shall be an evidentiary hearing So there are at least three components that have to occur And and who know is still denies that a clean and helpful environment is anything more than greenhouse gas It's okay. I understand. I understand now So, I mean predictably It was predictable. I should say what your position was going to be over the course of the hearing So you made that very explicit. It was predictable. What to hear a Steve pastes and sandy wong's position was going to be It was pretty predictable what the consumer advocates position was going to be because they've been fairly consistent from from my perspective, right Uh, and it was fairly predictable where who know is going to be and fairly predictable where helco is going to be now that said How much daylight did you see or did you perceive between the uh ostensible partners on the The the on one side being who know and hawaii electric a hawaii electric light company Did you see any daylight in the course of those evidentiary Days of hearings and intermers the questioning or the the cross examined the uh the objections. Do you see any daylight between those two parties? Do you mean daylight being um a separation in their views? Yes, yes differing opinions differing uh positions subtle or otherwise Who who knew uh tried to over and over and over again say that the conditions in 2017 and the conditions in 2022 are identical And therefore there should be the same price impact between the two five-year separation and the Who he co was saying conditions scenarios change from time to time with new facts coming in This is important because in 2017 He co said that who who knew would have a slight drop in rates But the current projection is that who who knew will raise everybody's rates for 30 years And so who who knew was trying to get he go to say but the conditions are identical over five years Therefore the rate impact should be identical And he co was like no the rates are going up and the consumer advocate said we did our own analysis We took he goes data. We put it into our models and the rates are going up So who who knew uh is trying to fight that because if we don't need new capacity If we don't need new generation If we've reached our rps goals Then why should we adopt something that will raise rates? And that's really I picked up on that as well. I mean it's really kind of Goes to the bone and I think that in the Mr. Mr. Knox is the attorney for the commission. He mentioned this as well that You know one of the consumer advocates top priorities is necessarily what what is the impact going to be of something like a possible new power plant on On the 85 000 plus big island ratepayers and beyond that of course You know the people and the families of the ratepayers right 200 000 or so people on this island and This notion or assertion That if you approve this ppa as is It's going to lead to people paying more on their helco bill, which we're already paying a record amount here You know, this is before We are seeing now price of oil in the world market in the hundred and twenty dollar a barrel range if you haven't seen in a long time And we I mean we're already seeing record record utility pricing here on this island That has topped the record of september 2009. I know something about this because I track it So this is all before possible substantial increases in In larger increases in oil So do you think this is a is it an argument over assumptions and methodology That I mean who who knew his position essentially is No, it's not it's not going to raise rates and we're that is that sure they were attacking hawaii electric lights company assertions that there would be a Effectively an increase of people paying more to the utility. Yes, absolutely and um and also who who knew it was trying to say that this Temporary rise in the rate of oil will be stretched over 30 years Now if the price of oil reaches 150 dollars a barrel and is maintained for 30 years, that's one thing But if there's a momentary Growth and it's a high rate That does not translate to a 30-year change in in the price of oil um and and so Who who knew I was trying to argue and and this was kind of funny I thought that one we should use the absolute latest data possible for oil And second we should use the 2017 data for everything else Um, and they were also upset that heco ran different scenarios using different sets of inputs and coming out with different results So they were saying for example If hamakua energy partners is retired in one scenario in 2031 and is not retired in 2031 in a different scenario Somehow that is wrong. The utility should not be running all these different scenarios Yet they should be running different scenarios in who who knew his favor Which was I think kind of bizarre Well, it sounds like maybe a textbook definition of cherry picking Yes, to at least some extent, you know another thing I've been trying to wrap my head around is this notion that Certain parties on this island who are in favor of a quantum leap forward as far as hydrogen production H2 production and some of these people I consider my friends and good folks and It kind of surprised me when this came out sometime last year When there was discussion of seemingly I think the phrase was preferential rates is somehow you would have an independent power producer such as who honua Which would be in under a contractual Agreement with the utility company here. It's what electric light company and yet somehow you would have there would be a one or more Consumers of electricity on the island Which would not be right next door to who honua, but would be somewhere else on the island Connected ostensibly via the wires that hawaii electric light company has transmission distribution and at that company Could somehow work out a deal with who honua to get preferential rates But let's call it what it is lower rates than the rest of us would pay Now towards these somehow the societal good or the good of this island to produce hydrogen because well Somehow they would deserve a lower rate because they're doing a good thing And they're they're meritorious. They they they merit getting a preferential rate and when I heard that and it still strikes me as is bizarre because Then you could conceivably have all kinds of Individuals and companies making a similar pitch raiser had saying oh, I have an idea If I had lower rates, I would be able to do abc would be good for the aina. It would be pono It would be abc through z right. What am I missing something here? No, you're exactly right Who who knew is proposing that the cost of the plant be passed on to the ratepayers And then for them to use excess energy to give a bargain rate to somebody else And the other point that is really important is there have been many years over many years There has been proposal to take Huno geothermal venture and create hydrogen and the question is why should Who Honeua have that right and PGV not have that right? And if they both have the right who gets to decide who gets it and according to helco You cannot sell power to a third party. It's not written in the ppa, but it's been an assumed practice for decades And here who who knew I was saying is if it's not technically in the document, we're going to find a loophole and I mean I think i'm correct in understanding that any such proposal for a preferential rate for One or more other parties somewhere else on the grid would have to pass PUC muster review and muster right scooters and less Unless the wire went directly From who Honeua to the facility But if the wire went directly it would go through the shoreline management area and would trigger all sorts of other regulatory review So, I mean, you know, Henry, we're both into politics and uh, you know, my my phd is in political science so I'd like to think that I have wherewithal to make the following observation when you have very committed Especially deep pocketed players It's in their interest to find allies where they need to find allies and in the case of hydrogen they found one and effectively We're able to get these particular individuals To come out in favor then of who Honeua after there was this kind of maybe it could be seen as a side deal Or or understanding that this is a priority for both parties. Therefore, if you do a A and b c I will support you moving forward with a b and c or your your plan in general so it's uh, it's just very interesting to see See how How the world works in the real world when you have very dedicated very deep pocketed in this case Beyond hawaii financing and interest That has been committed in a way that I've never seen before and I've been in the energy game here now for decades And I've never seen the type of Relentless dogged determination and commitment on the part of any any party, especially an outside party For so long a period. I mean, I could say that Next year I was certainly into it for several years. They gave it their all. They spent You know 100 million plus dollars when all is said done for a losing You know a battle that they lost they weren't in it for as long as who Honeua has been at and it's just It's striking to me how how much These these parties far from our shores So very much want this particular power plant to come online Yes, um, this is by far the longest fight over a non-existent plant so They proposed the plant in 2008. So we're in the 14th year um, and I can't It boggles the mind because losers have tended to walk away after a couple years Winners have tended to get contracts after a couple years The fact that a project would last five years to bring a new project on and be fighting is is Long in term of the PUC record, but 14 years definitely sets a record You have any insight behind the That determination and that longevity that resilience, you know, we talk about the the grid being resilient, right? Well, uh, the folks at who Honeua behind who Honeua been able to enlist the likes of Warren Lee Who I worked with at Provision. He was kind of the de facto manager Provision. I've known Warren For 22 going on 22 years have a lot of aloha gratitude towards him John Miata and a number of other local heavyweights, you know, they've really pushed all the buttons possible seems to me pulled all the levers possible to try to move this forward and And now like you said about 14 years later. It's still It's still ongoing and any idea why they've been at it for so long Well first first let me say that we are totally focused on whether the project makes sense or not And not the people in fact life of the land does not even rank candidates for administrative judicial Or legislative appointment. We don't attend fundraisers. We don't get involved in politics So our focus is entirely on the issue and yes, we have known some of the players a long time to We've been at the PUC for many decades And the only reason I can think of that they're going is as you say, they have extremely deep pockets They have billion dollars behind them And they can have the money to fight this out for as long as they want to um But it should sink or float Based on a true listing of all the relevant facts and a fair and balanced review of those facts You know and even though this this wasn't part of the proceedings There wasn't part of the ir so it wasn't part of the evidentiary hearings to me Kind of a supra supra super question and super as well as far as i'm concerned over this ongoing saga Whether it's today whether it's six months to go whether it's several years ago Yes, I post the question. Is this really the best that we can do? The best that we can do in terms of power generation specifically for the silent And of course that that is a It it brings up a response, which is it'd be either quantitative or qualitative And to me it just seems abundantly clear in answering my own question that this clear cutting trees For decades on this island Is far from the best that we can do it Now it kind of brings me to another point. I wanted to talk to you about So so much of what who knew his position has been and then I kept hammering away at this with witness after witness after witness after witness that their projections of net savings of greenhouse gases that When all of a sudden down after the decades It was going to make a positive contribution and the the the fulcrum point here If I understood correctly was that they were going to be planting trees planting trees planting trees planting trees planting trees and How how much confidence should we have in in a commitments like that for for any company To do something like that over not just a year or two, but over 30 years Their plan sounds marvelous Their plan sounds like it's a winner But walking the walk and talking the talk are very very different things um and for all of the fluff and and puff About their proposal for how many trees they're planting and what they're offsetting takes a lot of of Assumptions that they're doing the right thing and that they will do the right thing But you have to base it not on their Fluff but on the substance behind it Look clearing away the smoke and looking at the fire and seeing exactly what they're proposing And we feel the evidence shows that they Claim they'll plant at trees to offset, but if that's it just smoke and mirrors Let me flesh out a little of what you just so how is this smoke and mirrors? Is that essentially? Doubting their commitment to plant as many trees as they claim they would plant or is it they They would plant trees, but it wouldn't come anything close to The the the sink the carbon sink that they have been arguing strenuously month after month That I can't disclose at the moment because we don't want to give who honua any heads up on what's going to be In our final brief Understood. Okay All right, well I'm kind of segue to an interesting Quite a long piece today in the Honolulu star advertiser by one of the reporters Andre Gomes who has written a number of pieces on on energy and he noted Amongst other things 14 senators So he was talking both about the evidentiary hearings, but also about various bills that have are being considered were considered pastor President tense in the senate at least and I'm going to just read you a quote here 14 senators have weighed in at the PUC comma criticizing a 2020 commission decision to reject a competitive bidding waiver and ppa with hawaiian electric and the The point of me bringing this up is wow 14 senators and we have four senators four senators here on on the big island and up until Joyce and the Buena Ventura was elected Back in in 2020 there was Russell ruderman And so he was one of our senators and a friend of mine for for the you know two previous sessions So I don't think a Russell was on board with this group of 14 So I just find it interesting that You had a clear majority of all senators in the state who chimed in essentially Implicitly in favor of who honu his position and I wonder if you have any commentary or observations about that Yes, the um who honua has always thought that if they have enough money and enough political connections That should trump facts and it should trump the um Rates and it should trump the environment here. We're talking about Climate change getting worse and worse here We're talking about the senate saying that climate change is of the utmost importance And here they're saying we should be chopping down trees and burning them for electricity There is something Not connecting up there. You can't burn down the lungs of the planet and be concerned about climate change No, I think you put it about as simply and concisely as as it can be and uh I know we're we're wrapping things up here But I just want to I want to make clear in my own understanding that I get this right because this was repeated by a number of the parties Including your self-life of the land But I mean as far as what? Hawaii Electric Light Company has as far as existing generation and the fact that pgb Is on the way, you know week by week month by month to to Come back to where they were prior to the eruption and then if if the revised and amended and revised the restated ppa that's before the commission for pgb Were to go into effect, which I I support That would allow pgb to go up from its max right now 38 megawatts, which I don't believe they've been anywhere close Since they went down, but they're somewhere 20 somewhere the 20s if I understand correctly So they'd be going to 46 megawatts It would be under a fixed contract no longer avoided costs Which would be you know great for everybody here And then you've got two solar farms one You can see very clearly driving from Waikaloa village of going up melka That is well underway and another one that is underway as well now unfortunately the one at pua ko For 60 megawatts. They dropped out, but there was going to be another round of bidding So my point is is that from what I can tell We don't need another 20 plus megawatts of a power plant up at the ko burning trees So is that pretty much it is is that a consensus amongst amongst of the parties Without saying whether anybody supports going from 38 to 46 megawatts at in puna And and adding that we're repowering the hobby when farm And that in a few years we're going to probably be repowering the south point wind farm And as you say, there's this third round coming up Yes, the big island does not need Energy it does not need capacity What it needs is to to really reduce greenhouse gases and to really sharply lower rates Those are the two key issues who who knew it does neither of them. They raise the rates to every person on the big island And my take is that uh, I mean, uh, all commissions I'd like to think have had a very high priority on On rate control so to speak minimizing the hit the pain on the rate payer across the service territories that they regulate But i'm struck I can think particularly under this particular commission of uh, jay griffin jenny potter and leo ascension The day seemed to have taken it to another level as far as the sensitivity and a concern they've shown about the impacts of of any other decisions on What rate payers are going to be paying, you know that that monthly bill so Yeah, and again, especially uh during these difficult times as far as changing fuel suppliers now that par Mentioned or stated last week that they're going to move away from the russian pipeline And despite any kind of softening attempts pr attempts I mean, I have to believe that that's going to lead to an increase They're not going to be able to swap out Probably dollar for dollar what they would have been paying the russians that anyway, that's another conversation Well, my friend henry curtis, uh life of the land you and kat uh is doing fantastic work Uh regarding uh hu honua and other things that you guys have Taken on over the months uh and and years and decades so Much aloha and thank you to you henry for your time today. It's uh, it's been always always a pleasure Thank you marco. Always great talking with you. Thank you. Ahuy ho Ahuy ho