Della's Question of the Week #5: Can a ConCon address the energy crisis Hawaii is facing?

[Della Au Belatti]

Now, I know that this post will generate some buzz among you free market folks out there, but I'm going to put this question out anyway. And I hope all you folks out there who worry about climate change, peak oil, and global warming will jump into the fray!

This weekend, my husband and I watched 11th Hour, an amazing documentary/call to action when you consider the energy and natural resource challenges we are witnessing all over the world.

While you may disagree that global warming even exists and will have problems with this documentary from start to finish (BTW, I happen to believe the documentary is right about an awful lot), Tom Linzey, Executive Director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, made a compelling case for why Constitutions need to be reviewed and amended from time to time.

“And so, the reason why we have these reams of documents in the libraries about solutions, about solar, about how to produce food in a sustainable way, about transportation, about changing production methods and putting in place a sustainable economy that respects the planet, is that we lack the authority to drive those things into law. Because in reality we have a constitution that empowers the corporate few to make decisions that trump the majority. And it has been our failure to drive real law into place because we don’t have the authority.”

What I found extremely insightful was Linzey's reliance on the Jeffersonian tradition and school of thought: “We need to understand that even folks like Jefferson said we need to rewrite the Constitution every generation to meet our needs. Do we think that the Founding Fathers understood anything about global warming or deforestation or the massive amounts of toxic chemicals that are pumped into our atmosphere and into our air and land and water and soil everyday? What we need to do is find a harmony between people and nature and the only the way to do that is to recognize that nature has rights too.”

So, with that as a little bit of context, here's my 5th Question of the Week:

Opinion Polls & Market Research

I sincerely hope that this post stirs up some conversation. For some, I know that the call to action will be to eliminate Section 8, Article XI in our State Constitution that relates to nuclear energy. Personally, I don't believe that enabling the proliferation of nuclear power plants in our island community, without the checks and balance we currently have, is a direction to move in.

I would much rather we look at the structure of our state and local governments to see if we can improve the functionality of these governments to address particularly pressing energy and environmental problems. For example, can we learn from other state governments like California that has an Energy Commission or Oregon that has a Department of Energy? Or maybe the conversation can be about strengthening home rule and empowering the counties more, as Linzey and the CELDF suggests, so that each island community can have more control over realizing energy self-sufficiency for themselves?

I don't know the definitive answers to any of these questions. But, I believe the ConCon can be one way we collectivley begin to tackle the most challenging problems of our time that simply don't get addressed or, get addressed too slowly, through the normal course of legislation.

Comments anyone?

[Al Beeman]

I you lived near The Mile Island at the time, I'll bet you would have different views...

I have no problem defining cabinet level positions and defining things clearly and then letting the Gov and the Leg play. They are elected officials and unfortunately that often prevents them from taking a longer term view. Besides we can ConCon and tweak it every few years if we need to. Wish we had that luxury with the US federal constitution!

Given what I see coming out of the Honolulu bureaucracy, however, I think the Counties need to have more local control.

[Dan L.]

As I have said in other areas, I favor a constitution which enables rather than imposes. I think the constitutional prohibition on nuclear energy should be repealed, which would put the ball into the legislature's court -- or that of the people, if initiative is part of the new package. This is where such decisions belong.

I think Planning, Economic Development, and Tourism is a bit of an odd mix, and Energy deserves a little more attention than to be an appendix in an already grab-bag department. Should cabinet-level positions be spelled out in the Constitution? Why not leave the decision up to the legislature, again using the U. S. Constitution as a model.

I don't think the issue of how we light our homes is a constitutional matter. Government can certainly help determine this, through tax incentives etc. But the Constitution is the wrong place to write energy policy.

The issue is one of flexibility. A Constitution is, by design and necessity, a rigid document, not easily altered in the face of changing circumstances. Laws, by contrast, can be changed readily and quickly should the need arise. When the antinuclear clause in the state constitution was written, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were the defining aspects of nuclear power (though in my view most people learned the wrong lessons from Three Mile Island). Now there are many reasons to take another look at nuclear power. The decision may be the same, but it should be debatable, not locked into the constitution.

[Al Beeman]

I agree with Della!

In Hawaii each island community should have more control over realizing energy self-sufficiency for themselves!

"ConCon can be one way we collectively begin to tackle the most challenging problems of our time that simply don't get addressed or, get addressed too slowly, through the normal course of legislation."

Also, Hawaii State & County Initiatives, Referendum and Recall!

[Puna guy]

I disagree a bit with the prophets of energy "doom and gloom", there is still hope. The current oil price will continue to rise for awhile, then it will drop back some. The market will not tolerate $250 a bbl for long. But I can see $120 bbl thru the election. The demand market will respond, how many trips are you going to take at $15 a gallon in your F250? My best guess you are going to judge frivolous trips. Look at the losers in local airlines, it was predestined, efficiency rules when energy suddenly rises in a competitive market place, in other words "the fittest survive."

And being "fit" means it will spur new innovation to save energy money. You can do things at $100 bbl you can not at $40 bbl, The fact that we will never see $40 bbl has not stuck enough in the nation's collective mind yet, when it does the individual free market will respond. And for you that look askance at a free market, think of it as opportunity to collectively bond together during tough times.

But as an educated guess, please - look at overall history of the commodities market back 50 years. How many know about Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations?" For those that have not wanted to suffer 900+ pages, it is about the dynamic that runs markets between two extremes 'fear' and 'greed.' Simple market dynamics today and the past 5 years says, the market is being run by greed (1981-2001) beginning to show fear now (2002-now) but the balance will drop back as it did in every previous speculative market.

It is not instantaneous there will be further run ups and temporary retreats.

Either one believes in market forces or one does not, since our economy is based (well was) on market forces I choose to believe in them.

Either the market will respond or we have already "Jumped the Shark" and then it is "Katy bar the door."

But each of us can think about items that lie in If the price of oil continues to rise should we as a State, as Counties, and as individuals, be striving to excel in the eyes of visitor? To give aloha to strangers, and to smell the ka of old friends?

[cashpoor]

I love the fibinnachi numbers in your post Jimmy, $8 Billion dollars, 13 Billion, I'd trade on next week its $144 a barrel.

The thing is, the real numbers reflect actuall inflation of our dollar. Not the goods and services excluding food and energy numbers that we all focus on.
The oil prices are setting the new inflationary state of our economy. This could mean either, the 600 dollar check was a payoff for allowing more american dollars to be printed from thin air thus devaluating the dollar, or that when oil goes up, so does everything (thus creating alot of fear, but also creating a different lifestyle to adjust to). Its a turbulent market, and when you have more buyers then sellers the price goes up.

Of course what goes up comes down. so the price goes up, then people wake up and start living independantly and aware because of such adjustment and consumption goes down. But we still work, we still adjust to new ways of making money and at the end of day, as long as we protected our constitutional liberty and american personal freedom and privacy, we win. Just got to wake up a little.

I'm glad websites like this are around for that reason, oh wait, we need to protect that too. Can we add to the Con Con, a law that restricts internet censorship and media conglomeration in the state of Hawaii?

[James]

We are going to run out of it anyway. How fast is up to you. The Visitor to Hawaii may not want to spend the extra. Visitor industry takes a downturn. Added price of fuel to imported food will continue to climb and then out of sight. The high cost of fuel is a godsend and is taking automobiles off the road. Stay tuned folks household electricity climbs out of sight and we are in the dark. The streets go dark because electricity is too expensive. Well on second thought let the prices go wild.

[cashpoor]

Puna Guy: Don't count on oil going down to $80 barrel, it won't happen, it will be at $200 barrell soon, not back down. I don't know where you are making your estimates from, but I would diversify your sources. Its not OPEC or Saudi Arabia that is our problem, what people aren't telling you is that the banks are the middlemen here, and between New York and London 2 people wake up in the morning and decide what they will rob the world for oil today. This is the problem, as well as diminishing supply, you should research Peak Oil. And economics in China and India.

And Johnson, you are right to stop picking on the education system, but people need to learn to use the tools like the internet or even library and begin to seek their own independant knowledge, thus my comment about teaching and paving the way for entropenuers, not teaching people to follow the pack and be employees all their life. If one person in a family was a successful entropenuer, the rest of the family would have a much better shot at getting by, due to "having money in the family". If entropenuering didn't work for someone in the family, then they would have learned how hard is is to be in business and become a better employee.

Our evolution is evolving to a whole new way of looking at things and problems emerging here. And if you are stuck in the old industrial way, step aside and lets get some new school progress.

[cashpoor]

I see an issue that is going on right now, which has had me scratching my head about our energy monopoly Heco. On Maui, the windfarm of 20 windmills that has been functioning very effectively producing 20% of Maui's grid energy, has proposed to add 18 more. Meco has also been entertaining bids to build a windfarm in Ulupalakua of approx 40 windmills for another wind energy company.

Now here is the issue, Meco is playing the corporate game of "who will give us the best price". Between the windfarms. Ulupalakua has very little and inconsistant wind by comparison with the proposed addition to the West Maui windfarm. In addition, all of these windfarms sell energy back to Meco for way less than Meco can produce the same Kilowatts themself.

So, my questions are:

1. Why not let both windfarms go up now?

2. Why didn't Meco build this infrastructure themself? It would seem that we have given them all the control over our electric grid, and they can't even produce efficiently and sustainably the energy that these other companies can?

3. Why are they drilling down the prices from these companies, when that cuts out the bottom line for sustrainability from these private energy investment companies, thus making them look elsewhere for future projects and investments? Further the cost comparison with the diesel makes wind incredibly profitable for Meco, since the electric customers are still paying the same energy price as if it were diesel or 100% sustainable.

4. What are we actually going to do about this?

5. If the current windfarm is the windiest place in Hawaii, then why not have all the windmills in the same spot. The issue when they where constructed was the eye sore, but now that the oil is so expensive, our windfarm holds much pride amoung citizens, so why make 2 eye sores, instead of adding to the excisting eyesore (which I think they are awesome to look at, it gives me hope for Hawaii every time I look over there).

So the issue is, Meco/ Heco should not be permitted to have the monoploy on our energy grid. They have proven to be corrupted business people, at the people of Hawaii's expense.

[Puna guy]

As a retired multi-degreed mechanical engineer who often 'goes against the grain', the idea of nuclear power in HI is a disturbing thought for a variety of reasons, mostly due to intransigent Unions, associated Good Ol Boy Politics, and sluggishly non-competitive businesses.

When you consider how tightly integrated the 3 are here in HI, there is very little in terms of 'independent check and balances' which is crucial when you talk about something as technically complex as nukes. Maybe after 20 years under a new constitution - if independence can be achieved politically, but for the time being I'd put nukes on the back burner. A 'sabot' on nukes is you can count on 25 years of stiff opposition before the switch is thrown, brining it on line. Our needs are immediate not 25 years out.

I'd look for 'low hanging fruit' 1st as many alternative approaches need revisiting that have been rejected. Remember the engineering axiom that serves here: "always think of the simplest technological solution 1st, skip the political implications."

Some questions for your thoughts:
1) What can we citizens do 1st to reduce demand on the system while simultaneously boosting production? After all we live in a republic that allows both citizen involvement and those that don't participate.
2) What can the governments do to encourage energy self sufficiency on an individual basis before resorting to the Public Utilities, i.e. solar hot water heat vs. the old energy wasting (tanked) hot water heaters?
3) How would we have the government encourage energy independence with out a taxpayer funded hand out?
4) Who or what organization should provide capital (loans) for the hardware requirements?

Hawaii needs a long-term plan (30 years) to become as energy independent as reasonably possible. That will take both conservation (citizen awareness and participation) and increasing local supply via pumped hydro, solar, wind, biomass, and a conscious decision to get off imported oil. The price of oil will fall back to more tolerable levels, but I'd guess that will be at least $80 bbl. That increased price and the permanent huge new users in India and China will leave the US scrambling for energy alternatives.

Frankly back when I started my engineering career in 1971 the US was in a leadership position on energy. 37 years later we are just twiddling our thumbs while many innovations emerge from Europe.

We used to be a "can do" nation, we need to push forward to become that again.

[Jim Shon]

Getting back to the constitution, the issues of sustainability or greater focus on renewable energy will probably not be effectively addressed just because they are good ideas. If the constitution established an energy commission with certain goals, focus, powers and duties, with the ability of the Legislature to fill in the details and be flexible enough to adapt to new circumstances, that would be a more appropriate constitutional issue.