Pacific Business News: Future of Hu Honua hinges on motion to reconsider
By Megan Fernandes
July 31, 2020:The future of the nearly-completed Hu Honua bioenergy plant remains up in the air, after Honua Ola Bioenergy and its counsel filed a motion on July 20 to the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission to reconsider the July 9 order that closed the docket and dismissed the purchase power agreement between Honua Ola Bioenergy and Hawaiian Electric, preventing the project from moving forward.
To date, Honua Ola Bioenergy has spent more than $330 million in construction costs of the 21.5-megawatt plant on Hawaii Island and $474 million in all-in costs.
Honua Ola Bioenergy is requesting a hearing on its motion for reconsideration. The PUC is gathering public testimony until Aug.10 on the subject.
The motion gave six reasons for being justified, the biggest ones cite that the commission: mischaracterized estimated greenhouse gas emissions over the life of the project, disregarded contributions Hu Honua makes in achieving the state’s public policy objectives to meet renewable portfolio standards and delinking pricing from volatile fuels, and wrongly revoked its previously approved waiver knowing the company had invested millions in project costs since first being approved.
Warren Lee, president and CEO of Honua Ola Bioenergy, told Pacific Business News that the company hopes the PUC reverses the order to “get on with business.”
“We certainly hope the PUC will review the motion in depth to get the points we made, relative to the order issues,” Lee said.
Before the ruling, Lee said the company had been waiting months for an evidentiary hearing and now feels “left at the alter” with the project being so close to completion.
The project has faced multiple legal challenges since it was introduced in 2008. In 2013 and 2017, the PUC approved a power purchase agreement, or PPA, which legally allowed the project to proceed.
The future for the nearly competed Hu Honua bioenergy plant remains up in the air, after Hu Honua Bioenergy filed a motion to the PUC to reconsider the order that closed the docket and now prevents the project from moving forward.
It took more than a year for the Hawaii Supreme Court to make a decision after Life of the Land appealed the project’s PPA in 2017. In the motion for reconsideration, Hu Honua’s representation said that during the Supreme Court appeal the commission never recommended that Honua Ola stop or hold off on construction, despite knowing the biomass plant was underway and the developer was obligated to continue to construct. That same year, the commission stated that it expected Honua Ola and Hawaiian Electric to make “all reasonable attempts to complete the project according to schedule.” In that time, the project went from 50% to 95% complete.
In the years of challenges the project has faced, most of them were complex legal issues, running parallel to the ever-changing vision for the industry and legislation of Hawaii’s charge to 100% renewable portfolio standards by 2045.
A Hawaiian Electric spokesperson said in a statement to PBN that a lot has has changed since this project was first proposed 12 years ago.
“The renewable energy landscape and economics are dramatically different,” Hawaiian Electric said. “We continue to advocate for a diverse portfolio approach to ensure reliability and affordability as we transition off fossil fuels. Even without Hu Honua, proposed and existing renewable energy projects — wind, geothermal, grid-scale and rooftop solar, hydroelectricity, energy storage – will enable Hawaii Island to use renewable resources to generate nearly all of its electricity by the end of this decade.”
The PUC stated in the now-closed docket that while the Hu Honua project may result in community benefits such as economic stimulation and employment creation, these arguments are not unique to the Hu Honua project. But Lee, and others like the Hawaii Forest Industry Association that submitted public testimony, argue it is.
“When Hu Honua becomes operational, there are a lot of ramifications for local economic diversity,” Lee said. “We can be the catalyst for more direct and indirect jobs [at the plant and in supporting industries like forestry and agriculture]. Until this plant gets going, that’s not going to happen.”
Honua Ola Bioenergy employs more than 60 people, the majority in operations and maintenance, who were brought on early to train.
“你不会在一夜之间变成控制操作符,”李said. “We hired operators to watch the plant be built because it’s one thing to see it on paper, but the best way to operate is to see it be constructed. We prepared them for a long-term career, but if this is doesn’t go forward or it gets dragged out, these jobs are in trouble.”
Other concerns cited by the PUC in its ruling include Hawaiian Electric’s updated resource plans — where the addition of the Hu Honua Project coming online in 2020 does not directly accelerate the retirement or conversion of any of the utility’s existing fossil fuel plants on the island — lingering issues regarding the impact of the project’s GHG emissions and price compared to Hawaiian Electric’s rapidly growing portfolio of solar-plus-storage projects.
“The plant’s purpose was to replace fossil fuel generation, not renewable energy,” Lee said, noting the comparison of price from bioenergy to other renewables like solar-plus-storage is comparing apples to oranges.
To date, there are hundreds of public comments filed PUC, both for and against the project. One of the most prominent being SenatorRussell Ruderman谁写的,项目不是在加州Hawaii Island’s best interest.
Last week, Life of the Land filed a motion last week with the PUC alleging that Honua does not meet the standard for reconsideration.
Honua Ola Bioenergy said that in the best-case scenario, the PUC would reverse its July 9 order and set the matter for a hearing in compliance with the Hawaii Supreme Court’s instructions. The worst-case scenario for the company is the motion for reconsideration is denied. In that case, Hu Honua Bioenergy would be responsible for the investment, and the developer will likely appeal to the higher court and sue the PUC to recover the loss.
PUC ChairJames Griffinsaid that given the pending motion for reconsideration, the commission could not comment.