 We're following up today with my co-host Marco Mangelsdorf and our special guest again to cover the subject, Henry Curtis, Life of the Land. I'm Jay Fidel. This is Stank Tech and Marco. Take a moment and introduce Henry for us, will you? Thank you. My pleasure. Well, great to be back with you, Jay, and great to be back with you as well, Henry. It seems like we've done this before, and who knows? We will be talking the same thing in a year, two years, five years. This seems to be the zombie power plant that's just hard to put down. So Henry Curtis, Life of the Land has been truly on the forefront for these past years in so many regards, especially regarding Pujo Nila. So what happened on Friday, my friend, Henry, and what do we expect in the days and weeks to come after what happened on Friday, please? Well, on Friday, the PUC, the Public Utilities Commission, issued their final decision saying that they were rejecting the contract between Helco and Hujo Nua. This gives Hujo Nua and Helco 30 days to file an appeal with the Hawaii Supreme Court. This would be the fourth trip up to the court. And so the court can do one of three things. It could reject the appeal. It could traditionally hold the appeal, which means introducing briefs and counter briefs and reply briefs and oral arguments, or it could decide to go through the whole thing but without oral arguments. So the court has three options, assuming the appeal does occur. Marco, what are the chances that an appeal will occur? Chances are 100% that the appeal will occur. Warren Lee indicated that an appeal would occur last year. And we see no reason that it's not going to occur. However, the major issue, Hujo Nua would like only one issue to be on the table, and that is greenhouse gases. But clearly their plant is going to emit huge amounts and they don't have sequestration plans. Therefore, they lose on the one ground that they think is the only issue on the table. There are a couple of points of curiosity. This is a two to one decision. I guess they're not unanimous, eh? What happened? We've had two to one decisions in the past. They don't occur often, but they have occurred from time to time. And of course, with a three-member commission, there's only really two possibilities, the two to one decision which rejected the Hujo Nua contract and the two-zero opinion on writing the final nail in the coffin. Well, Henry, what do you make of Leo Asuncion's decision to abstain and the decision on Friday, whereas earlier he voted, he dissented from J. Griffin and Jenny Potter. So I was kind of puzzled by Leo's, and I haven't asked him that. I was just kind of wondering if you have any insight into why Leo decided to abstain as opposed to dissent. With the exception of possible recusals, I've never seen an abstention before. So I really don't know. But clearly there's new policy being set every day at the PUC. I mean, in this case. Yes, in this case. A gentleman who strikes me that we've never seen anything like this case. This is making history at every single level because they are so determined to have their way. Am I right? Yeah, the only other battle that I can remember in the history of energy in Hawaii that lasted longer was the Kamoko Pukalei 138 KV line that HIKO wanted to build between Palolo and near the Alawai Canal. And that line they proposed in 73, the PUC said, yes, but very part of it. HIKO said, we don't want to bury part of it. Let's have a motion for reconsideration. And then the fight lasted to 2002 and they didn't get the project. So that is the longer one. But this is the second longest that I'm aware of in state history. Well, it's to your credit, Henry, that you keep up with them and keep going and to the credit of life of the land, you know, the number of appeals and efforts and, you know, and steps they've taken really would suggest that they're trying to break the bank with you. But they haven't broken the bank with you and you're ready to deal with the appeal that we believe is now coming, right? Yes, we're in this for the long haul. We think that climate change is a very serious issue. And who knew is the largest contributor to greenhouse gases potential, if they were to actually be implemented. And therefore it has to be stopped on greenhouse gas emissions alone. But there are all sorts of other issues from protecting biodiversity to the amount of pollutants that the plant would emit that are not greenhouse gases to the protection of the coastal waters. So there are many reasons to stay involved in this fight to the end. Well, it strikes me that in a number of cases in the past, the this Supreme Court, this State Supreme Court, has has has the ruled on the environmental side of a number of issues. They seem to be an environment environmentally conscious court. So, I mean, that that's kind of encouraging. At the same time, I personally really worry about the dark side of what I call, you know, the ghost of Christmas future. I suppose just suppose they don't agree with you about these various environmental issues, you know, especially burning wood. You know, what happens in the community, in the state or future such application? Well, the Hawaii Supreme Court just ruled on the payahee case a few months ago. And in that one, they said, you you can't just wave your hand and say there are environmental concerns. But if you can point to specific impacts that directly impact you, then the regulatory body has to look at them. And so in this case, we're talking about putting so much water into the aquifer just 80 feet from the ocean. It would cover a football field 60 feet deep every day, 80 feet from the ocean. And they would clear cut forests. And both of those are specific issues of environmental concern that we point to that who knew has refused to discuss in this proceeding. So based on the payahee decision, we're certain the Supreme Court will side with us on those. Yeah, Henry to those for those. Those of us who don't want to see that power plant ever come online, it would seem to me the the best case scenario with the Hawaii Supreme Court would be that they would summarily reject who knew was predicted appeal and just not even take it up on substance. Was am I correct on that? That would be the best case scenario. That would be the best case scenario. So I know one shouldn't get to down into the weeds as far as predicting the timing of a court decision. But it would seem to me and part of this, of course, which we'll think in on my part that they would rule on a sooner rather than later. And do you have any sense of again, assuming that they they filed the appeal by July 24th, how soon the court may issue a decision as to how they decide on that? Assuming that they don't simply dismiss the appeal on hand and assuming that they do go through the oral argument, which is normally the way the Supreme Court handles cases like this, then we would expect the decision probably early next year. Well, how does time work? There's time for a new one. There's time for you. I think it favors us. But. They still don't have their permit from the Department of Health for the water injection. So that's going to be a whole other fight if they somehow survive this one. But we're in it, we're in it until it dies. Got it. The other question that comes out of that is suppose on one basis or another, you went and the Supreme Court either dismisses the appeal or rules on the substance of the environmental question. What happens then, Henry? We would probably ask for legal costs on their latest when they tried to dodge the evidentiary hearing and the Supreme Court came down on them fairly hard. We asked for to cover the costs of our filings and our legal fees. And the court decided only that who knew should pay our filing fees. So that amounted to we're going to get a check from who knew for about $14. Oh. The case is going on for years. That's really interesting. Oh, my God. Now you know one thing. Go ahead. So if it were to if there were to shift, let's say. My take is I'll go on a little bit of a mango limb here, mango tree limb that the court has had enough of this particular subject. And they have made a number of rulings on it as you just kind of alluded to the last time that who knew I went to the Supreme Court, they got slapped down pretty quick saying, no, it's going to the evidentiary hearing will go forth as scheduled that. So, you know, if they do, I'm not like I said, I'm going to predict that they will reject it summarily because they say, well, we don't see any substantive ground here for the claim that somehow procedure wasn't followed by the commission. The the likelihood of the federal lawsuit being revivified would strike me as being pretty high. They're already into it for, you know, by their count, more than half a billion dollars, right? So it wasn't a million or two or more for attorneys to pursue to restart their federal lawsuit. If they were to do that, if you as you understand that particular suit, Henry, on what basis would they be suing Hawaii Electric Light Company and other parties? Their suit contends that when Next Era tried to buy HECO that somehow Hawaii Electric Industries wound up owning Hamakua Energy Partners, which is a competitor to Huanua and therefore Helco basically canceled the contract on them when they had gotten approved in in 2013. That sort of falls apart because Huanua lost control of their facility. They ran into legal problems with the land owner, with labor unions, with management. They missed two critical deadlines, milestones, and Helco rightfully canceled the contract. If, however, for some reason, Huanua decides that we've lost at the state level, we might as well seek damages at the federal level, then Huanua would be opposing HECO. And therefore, life of the land would be on the same side as HECO, trying to finally put the final nail in Huanua. But that that case would not affect the construction or the operation of the plant, right? That's only a case for damages against the line electric. Right. But as ratepayers of Huanua Electric and as shareholders, we own two shares of HCI stock. So we're major shareholders. We would have major. It's all it's all in the observation. Yeah, right. We would have a vested interest in making sure that HCI is not held responsible financially to make sure that the utility remains structurally and financially whole. So it sounds like this federal case, the one for damages, is on hold. But why is it on hold? Why doesn't it just continue on its own track? It's on hold because in order when when Huanua filed it, HECO asked for mediation. And the mediation came up with the idea of a new power purchase agreement, which we're fighting about right now. And so the proceeding is on hold. And if the power purchase agreement is eventually approved, the federal proceeding dies. But if the power purchase agreement is rejected, then the federal case is revived. And I'm going to ask you to speculate. You would you've written a number of times the opacity of the money and the people behind who Huanua. And I'm curious as to whether you have I mean, kind of the common man conclusion about something like that is what do they have to hide, right? The why aren't they more transparent in terms of where the money is coming from, who's behind it and so forth. Do you have any insight, any theory, any hypothesis even as to why this particular company that is by their own account spent a lot of money on this proposed power plan? Why why things have been so opaque? I think it's because when you run a giant ad in the newspaper or on television, you're presenting your side and you're painting it the way you want to and nobody is questioning you and therefore it's a one way flow of information. Oh, my God, look, please protect us. We're doing everything right. Whereas in an evidentiary hearing, each side has to lay out their case and then be subject to cross examination by the other side. And who Huanua, for some reason, is deathly afraid of being cross examined. They don't mind putting ads in the paper. No, they don't mind spending lots and lots of money as long as nobody has the right to question their quote facts, unquote. I mean, one thing all this race is is is an article about the chief council, at least the chief local council for who Huanua has now been appointed as the what education for his boss. Yeah, the chair is it of the Board of Education. That sounds like a pretty weighty job. How does that affect things, if at all? Well, if that is the consolation prize to who Huanua for losing this contract. I think we could accept that. You do have a very strong approach to Henry. So let's talk about legislation, I mean, because who Huanua has been trying hard and spending money to be influential in state government. One way or the other, in many ways, I would say. And so the question is, you know, what what came out of the 2022 legislative session that might affect its position and this project? What came out is amazing because they were supporting Senate Bill 2510 without actually ever publicly testifying for it. And of course, the House went along with it because all kinds of bills were being held up unless they supported it. Now that 2510 is heading for the governor's list, and which he'll announce later today if it's on the veto list or not. What it has done is united a broad cross section of energy stakeholders, developers, renewable energy people, environmentalist utilities, co-ops, all sorts of entities unified in opposition to 2510. So we should actually thank Huanua for helping to unify and unite a very strong and diverse opposition. Can you take a moment and explain to us what 2510 would do? 2510 would say that basically no more renewables, intermittent renewables, no more wind, no more solar distributed or on site or commercial. No more batteries can be deployed until a bunch of Huanuas are approved on all the islands. And of course, that would take multiple years of fighting over whether the PUC should accept them or that. And therefore basically the renewable energy industry would die in Hawaii for a decade unless either somebody came along and vetoed 2510 or the next governor and legislature decided to destroy the bill because it is the worst energy bill we've seen in this century. Interesting. But a number of legislators have sponsored it and are behind it. What's going on? They sponsored it. Let's separate the Senate. And well, no, let's not separate them. A number of legislators went along because if the most powerful person or the second most powerful person in the state legislature says, if you don't pass my bill, I'm going to destroy all your bills. And therefore the legislature passed it. But we know from polls that there is insufficient override in the House and there may be insufficient override in the Senate. So a lot of people went along in order to get their bills passed. Now that their bills are passed, they don't owe anything to the supporters of Senate Bill 2510. And in all likelihood, if the governor vetoes it, it would never come up for an override. And the legislature. You've been involved in solar energy and in the renewable spectrum of possibilities for decades. What is what is the reaction of the renewable sector to this 25? It's fierce, fierce opposition, Jay. There were there have been protests to the capital. I've rarely in the 20 years, 22 years, I've really been in the trenches in Hawaii. I've rarely seen this kind of mobilized collective effort on the part of people in the solar industry, at least, to the campaign against any particular bill. So it's been very strong. It's been very vocal. It's been very public. So I would be very, very surprised if Governor E. Gay did not put this bill on his potential retail list. So what we'll find out very, very soon. So I mean, we have a few minutes left here, Henry, and I wanted to get your take and get updated and educated on new goings on across the channel on Maui in terms of renewable energy. Could you fill us in? Yeah, the powering past coal task force that the governor created to look at how you avert a disaster when the AES coal plant shuts down in September. One, the idea was, why don't we extend that to Maui? Because Maui has two generator, four generators that are basically going offline shortly at Kaholui. And therefore, well, the Jake Griffin, the head of the PUC and Shelley Kimura, head of HECO sent a letter asking the county to get involved in the county step board and created the Maui County Accelerating Clean Energy and Decarbonization Implementation Technical Working Group, which is about you to say, my goodness, but it's ASTIT is the acronym and it takes a greater reaction because the Miko generators at Maalaya, some of them are aging and the company that made the parts don't necessarily have the parts for refitting when they have to be overhauled. So suddenly a third of the firm power on Maui will be may go offline in the next five years. So it becomes incumbent not only to get things moving that have passed the PUC, but also to look at where we need to put new projects online quickly. So it's a comprehensive approach involving the county, involving environmentalists, land developers, the PUC, the consumer advocate, HECO, a broad swath of the community to seek to figure out what Maui's future is in the near term the next five years. You know, it strikes me these things are they're not smoothly directed at doing what we agreed was the state policy, namely moving with dispatch to clean and renewable energy. And in this case, Uho Nua certainly is an example of putting obstacles in the road to that policy. And now we have a two to one or a two to abstain decision going to be appealed and it might take several months at least to resolve it and other litigation that may follow it. And and we have Jay Griffin leaving the PUC like this week. Thursday, Thursday, that is 30th of June. This is a it's of concern because he was a stalwart defender, if you will, clean energy and and a stalwart a stalwart critic of of who knew it. And so the question is what what does this mean? Is this is this give you other concerns to Henry that we have a change in the composition of the of the PUC? And of course, these appointments are political. And so much of what we've been talking about here is subject to political influence. What are your thoughts about Jay's departure and what follows? Jay certainly is made a lasting impression on the PUC and on energy policy statewide. Naomi Kauai, who's coming on board on Friday, we've known for over 20 years we were involved in a contest case proceeding before the Board of Land and Natural Resources on energy 20 years ago. So we know who Naomi Kauai is and we are optimistic that the PUC will continue on its path forward, that who who knew it was simply a blip and that all three commissioners favor moving Hawaii aggressively towards 100 percent renewable energy and decarbonization. So we do not feel that who who knew it will taint the PUC in any way going forward. We we think that everything will continue to move smoothly advancing state policy. And one thing to keep an eye on this week, of course, as the days grow shorter for Jay to walk out the door of the commission for the last time is that the governor has yet to name his choice for a commission chair, right? And I would think it's highly likely that he will do so by Thursday. And of course, there's a limited number of people to choose from. And that's not subject to Senate confirmation. So we'll have that to look forward to in the days to come. And I just want to put a plug in there for Jay Griffin as well. I I have such high regard for him, both personally and also professionally, that he has done a fantastic job of the commission and making the commission to me one of the cutting edge commissions or boards of all of all 50 states. And he deserves some time off and some time down time with his family, which I'm sure he'll be getting, but he's he's done a fantastic job. And I wish him very well. You know, Henry, we're in a confluence, a confluence that you're you know, at the center of really life of the land in this case. And, you know, it seems to me that people may be confused out there if they read those full page ads and not hear the cross examination made in public. So I want to offer you the opportunity to leave a message with people. How would you like people to think about this case and about the confluence? I'd like to think that people saw this case and and may have taken on energy for the first time, really thinking about it really seriously. And that as we move forward, we need holistic solutions that involve people from across all communities, all socioeconomic groups, all islands, and we need to work together to find a sustainable future. Thank you, Henry. Thanks for coming on. Marco, will you thank Henry, too, please? Thank you, Henry, for coming on. Thank you for joining us yet again. It's just great to get you back so frequently. And I mean, we'll always have interesting things to talk about. And maybe just maybe the next time we talk, there will be something even more definitive regarding that zombie of a power plan up of Pepe Keo of the Hamakua Coast. So thanks so much to you again, Henry, and thank you, Jay, for for today. Mahalo, Marco and Jay, thank you for inviting me on the show. I always enjoy being here. Thank you so much is happening in energy. And I'm so glad that we could get the other to discuss these things. Henry Curtis, Marco Mangostar, Aloha. Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.