Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Mandatory Energy Benchmarking and Disclosure for Buildings

By Henry Curtis

Knowing how many miles per gallon a car is rated at is a useful tool for comparing alternatives.

No car that I have ever owned got as many miles as claimed, but the miles per gallon metric did serve as useful analysis for back of the envelope comparisons.

Imagine having the same data for buildings.

Buildings account for a large percentage of the total U.S. consumption and emissions in several key areas.

Electricity Consumed
Energy Used
Raw Materials Used
Waste Output
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potable Water Used

How much energy is being consumed by a Waikiki boutique seeking to entice customers into their store by air conditioning the sidewalk in front of their building?

In the last 20 years some fifty governments around the world have passed legislation require energy benchmarking.

Denmark was first with mandatory reporting in 1992 for commercial buildings and then in 1993 for residential buildings.

In 2002 the European Union established the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD).  Thirty-one European countries established national level energy rating policies.

Since then a number of countries, states and cities have passed similar legislation.

The information can compare energy usage within communities.

HOWEVER, great care should be used in comparing data between different regions. There are no international standards.

Some legislation focused on the narrower category of energy usage while other legislation focused on broader environmental indicators such as LEEDS which seeks to measure all resource inputs.

Many words have differing regional or national meanings or interpretations.

On the positive side, the fact that Australia, Brazil, Canada, the European Community, the People’s Republic of China, Turkey and several U.S. cities and states are beginning to require the data represents a great stride forward.

California became the first U.S. State to take action.

In 2007 California began requiring commercial rating and disclosure at the time of sale, lease or other financial transaction.

Benchmarking and disclosure legislation have been adopted by the state of Washington (2009), Washington DC (2008), Austin, Texas (2008), New York City (2009), Seattle (2010), San Francisco (2011), Philadelphia (2012), Minneapolis (2013) and Boston (2013).

U.S. Comparisons can be found in the following table produced by the City of Philadelphia.

Minimum Building Size Requiring  Benchmarking
(Square Feet)  

Extent of Disclosure
Period of Reporting
Not required
Not required
Local government and potential owners
District of Columbia
Not required
New York City
San Francisco
Not required
5+ Units
Local government, tenants and transactional counterparties
Not required
Transactional counterparties
At time of sale, lease, or financing
Not required
Local government and transactional counterparties
At time of sale, lease or financing

 #      #      #

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

HELCO Files Power Supply Improvement Plan

By Henry Curtis

Hu Honua plans to generate biomass based electricity in Pepe`ekeo on the Hamakua Coast at the old Hilo Coast Power Company facility.

The project still has to clear federal clean air and state Shoreline Management Area (SMA) legal challenges.

Last December the Hawai’i Public Utilities Commission approved the Hawai‘i Electric Light Company-Hu Honua Power Purchase Agreement. The PUC required, as part of that approval, that HELCO write a Power Supply Improvement Plan within 120 days.

On April 21, 2014 HELCO complied by filing a Power Supply Improvement Plan which is 512 pages long and 19.3 megabytes in size.  

The Table of Contents, if it can be called that, is located in the final four pages of the document.

The very last item in this Table of Contents is the following PUC requirement.

"Identify ways in which Hawai‘i Electric Light could provide visibility and transparency regarding its generation commitment and economic dispatch process for the purpose of providing greater public confidence that the process minimizes energy costs, maximizes renewable energy generation, and dispatches both utility and IPP generation in a nonpreferential and nondiscriminatory manner."

Much of the document was PDF-ed horizontally allowing for easy copying.

Sensitive pages were PDF-ed vertically, which means those who try to copy the document get a series of vertical columns containing a few words on each line.

The Public Utilities Commission will re-scan the document and convert the whole document to a user friendly copyable format.

No doubt HELCO ratepayers will wind up paying for the wasted duplication.

A very small section of the document is redacted. The three Public Utilities Commission approved intervenors in the Hu Honua regulatory proceeding will definitely get to see this redacted information.  

They are Life of the Land, Hamakua Energy Partners (owner of the Honoka`a Naphtha generator), and Tawhiri Power LLC (owner of the South Point Wind Farm).

The Public Utilities Commission may ask for comments from a much wider audience than just these three intervenors.

While much of the Report is technical, there are some sections which lay people can understand and which may be very important for the future HELCO grid.

The Report examines energy storage alternatives.

Hawai‘i Electric Light grid currently has three energy storage projects: the Hawi lithium titanate one megawatt/250kWh system, the Koyo lithium ion 100-kW/248 kWh system and the West Hawaii Civic Center lithium ion 100-kW/248 kWh system.

The Report examines the system I wrote about yesterday.

Amber Kinetics has developed an 8,000 pound flywheel system using relatively common materials and technology. … They plan to deploy a 100 KW/400 KWh unit at the Puuwaawaa Ranch (Blue Planet Research) under the Energy Excelerator (DoD) program as part of a Napuu Water Well PV project. … They are proposing to provide a complete system at $625/KWh, which appears to be the most competitive system price. The metal in the unit is completely recyclable at the end of life. … A 20 year life is expected. The materials at end of life have high value towards replacement.”

One statement is kind of bizarre in that everything is made out of chemicals.  

Storage systems can have end of life safety and environmental concerns which must be addressed. The preference is for benign chemistry, or in some cases, no chemistry at all.”

The Report also examines a number of alternatives energy storage systems including Pumped Storage Hydro, the Beacon Power and Power Tree (flywheel), American Vanadium (flow battery), ViZn (zinc-iron redox flow battery), Aquion Energy (hybrid electrochemical), EOS (zinc-air) and Ambri (liquid metal and molten salt).

The Report examines generation, transmission, the energy management system, curtailment and a ten-year plan.

The Report notes that, "The 10-year base plan is NOT a fixed direction or predetermined path forward. Rather, the 10-year base plan is a reference from which future options can be evaluated and selected. The basic concept is to select the resources and technologies that will provide the lowest reasonable cost and best fit resources to meet customer needs. The 10-year base plan provides a tool to assist in making those selections."

If indeed it is a reference plan, then it is a poor reference plan. There is no forecast of future demand which is crucial for planning purposes.

The Report describes the Geothermal Request for Proposal (RFP) 

The Geothermal RFP will provide cost and technical information to make an evaluation for comparison of this potential resource against the base plan. The resource will be included in the base plan if it results in overall cost reduction to customers and is anticipated to maintain or improve reliability. As a preliminary evaluation, alternate resource plans were evaluated to consider if a 25-MW geothermal facility in East Hawaii could be accommodated and the impacts on curtailment. No West Hawaii geothermal facility was evaluated.”

In the final section on the main part of the Report, just before the Appendix, HELCO appears to dismiss a new geothermal facility.

The new geothermal resource is assumed to be must-take at 25 MW and accepted ahead of all other curtailable and dispatchable resources. The resource is assumed to have the required operational and technical characteristics to support system reliability. Preliminary results show that a new 25-MW base-load geothermal facility would primarily displace energy from Hamakua Energy Partners and Keahole but would also reduce energy purchases from PGV, wind, and hydro due to excess energy.”

#      #      #

Monday, April 21, 2014

Energy Innovation comes to the Big Island

By Henry Curtis

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to test energy storage devices has been signed by the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA), the County of Hawaii and Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELCO).

The issue was discussed at the March 4, 2014 meeting of the Hawai’i County Energy Advisory Commission, filmed by Occupy Hilo.

 Hawai’i County Energy Coordinator Will Rolston noted that, “There's a PV system provided under a Department of Energy grant” which will provide 30-KW of power to companies so they can test their energy storage systems.

NELHA will provide the space for pre-commercial demonstration projects.

Rolston added that, “HELCO will be responsible for comparing that technology to other technologies so it will be a kind of verification of costs, how it works, how it can be deployed on the grid.”

Amber Kinetics is one of sixteen companies that have expressed interest. The company was launched in 2009 and has developed a flywheel prototype.

Flywheels spin at high speed and act as short-term storage. Flywheels can be used to smooth out minute-to-minute fluctuations of intermittent (variable) energy produced by wind and solar facilities.

According to Rolston, Amber touts that “their flywheel as basically being able to spin at 100,000 plus revolutions per minute and only seeing a degradation of five percent in a 24-hour cycle so they believe they can provide firm power coupled with an intermittent source like wind ... to the grid.”

Steve Burns, the county's first energy coordinator, raised the issue of Community Solar, whereby utility customers could buy shares in a renewable energy facility built to easily integrate into the HELCO grid.

Customers would see a decrease in their utility bill based on the amount of energy produced by their share in the renewable energy facility.

Steve Burns noted that Community Solar would need to be approved by the Public Utilities Commission; that promoting the concept “would have to be pursued from a policy standpoint at the regulatory arena.”

David De Luz Jr, Chair of the Hawai’i County Energy Advisory Commission, noted the value of looking at the Big Picture and engaging the community.

“The concept is not to be siloed. Does it make it more difficult to stay focused in regards to some of the outcomes? There's no doubt. Does it create questions that lead to more questions? Definitely.  But I believe the exercise in itself in being able to engage is probably where we need to get to, so people are more vested in wanting it to continue."

#      #      #

Sunday, April 20, 2014

The Birth of the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI)

By Henry Curtis

For the past six years I have delved into the mysteries and mythologies associated with the founding on the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI).

The two key documents are the Memorandum of Understanding (January 2008) and the Energy Agreement (October 2008).

They key players were two Republican leaders: pro oil  U.S. President George Bush and Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle; the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT), the Consumer Advocate (CA) and Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO).

But that only tells the story of the nominal powers.

Who actually was responsible for initiating, shaping and drafting the agreement?

The recently released Hawai’i Clean Energy Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) appears, at least superficially, to respond to this issue by adding a new wrinkle – The Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The first page of the PEIS Executive Summary states,

In furtherance of the provisions of Section 355 of EPAct 2005, DOE and the State of Hawai‘i entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in January 2008. This MOU established a long-term partnership known as the Hawai‘i Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI) to transform the way in which energy efficiency and renewable energy resources are planned and used in the State.”

H.R. 6 was introduced on Apr 18, 2005 by Texas Republican Joe Barton and co-sponsored by two California Republicans, Richard Pombo and William Thomas.

The bill raced through Congress, supported by Hawaii Senators Inouye and Akaka and Representative Abercrombie, but opposed by Representative Case, and was signed by the President on August 8, 2005.

Section 355 required the Department of Energy to write a Report on the “Assessment of dependence of State of Hawaii on oil.”

The Report was to include including “island-by-island” solutions, liquefied natural gas and hydrogen.

The DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy was required to release the report in June 2006.

Instead the Report was released on January 13, 2009, the year after the HCEI agreements were signed.   

I have been unable to locate the document.

In the meantime more revelations have surfaced on the formation of HCEI.

On April 16, 2014 Rep. Schatz held a Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water hearing at the East West Center. Dawn Lippert was an invited speaker.

She asserted, “Seven years ago I was fortunate enough to join in drafting the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative.”

A graduate of Yale University, Dawn Lippert had worked as a senior consultant for Booz Allen Hamilton (2007-09) and then became the Director of the Pacific International Center for High Tech Research (PICHTR) Energy Excelerator (2009- ). 

She is the founder and president of Hawai’i’s Women in Renewable Energy (WiRE).

She is one of several key Hawai’i energy players who previously worked for Booz Allen Hamilton and/or graduated from Yale University.


(a) ASSESSMENT.—The Secretary of Energy shall assess the economic implications of the dependence of the State of Hawaii on oil as the principal source of energy for the State, including—

(1) the short- and long-term prospects for crude oil supply disruption and price volatility and potential impacts on the economy of Hawaii;

(2) the economic relationship between oil-fired generation of electricity from residual fuel and refined petroleum products consumed for ground, marine, and air transportation;

(3) the technical and economic feasibility of increasing the contribution of renewable energy resources for generation of electricity, on an island-by-island basis, including— (A) siting and facility configuration; (B) environmental, operational, and safety considerations; (C) the availability of technology; (D) the effects on the utility system, including reliability; (E) infrastructure and transport requirements; (F) community support; and (G) other factors affecting the economic impact of such an increase and any effect on the economic relationship described in paragraph (2);

(4) the technical and economic feasibility of using liquefied natural gas to displace residual fuel oil for electric generation, including neighbor island opportunities, and the effect of the displacement on the economic relationship described in paragraph (2), including— (A) the availability of supply; (B) siting and facility configuration for onshore and offshore liquefied natural gas receiving terminals; (C) the factors described in subparagraphs (B) through (F) of paragraph (3); and (D) other economic factors;

(5) the technical and economic feasibility of using renewable energy sources (including hydrogen) for ground, marine, and air transportation energy applications to displace the use of refined petroleum products, on an island-by-island basis, and the economic impact of the displacement on the relationship described in paragraph (2); and

(6) an island-by-island approach to— (A) the development of hydrogen from renewable resources; and (B) the application of hydrogen to the energy needs of Hawaii.

(b) CONTRACTING AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of Energy may carry out the assessment under subsection (a) directly or, in whole or in part, through 1 or more contracts with qualified public or private entities.

(c) REPORT.—Not later than 300 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall prepare (in consultation with agencies of the State of Hawaii and other stakeholders, as appropriate), and submit to Congress, a report describing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations resulting from the assessment.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this section.

#      #      #

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Free Electricity

By Henry Curtis

About eleven percent of all HECO, MECO and HELCO customers have rooftop solar.

The rooftop solar customer has a Net Energy Metering (NEM) relationship with the utility. The Transmission Grid acts as a battery.

The customer transfers electricity to the grid during the afternoon and pulls electricity out of the grid during other parts of the day. They only pay for the net amount of energy used.

If one month the customer provides more electricity to the grid then the customer pulls out, then the customer has a credit which they can tap into the following month.

At the end of each year the account is zeroed out. The excess credits are given to the utility. In essence, the utility has been given “Free Electricity.”

Under federal law, rules and regulations the utility must zero out the account each year and is not permitted to pay for the excess electricity when the account is zeroed out.

An alternative power exchange scheme is called a Power Purchase Agreements (PPA). 

As opposed to Net Energy Metering, in a Power Purchase Agreement scheme, the IPP sells (exports) electricity to the grid at the wholesale price and buys (imports) electricity at the retail rate.

Some IPPs, such as wind generation facilities, only exist to export electricity to the grid.

Other IPPs, most notably sugar plantations, co-generation petroleum refineries and commercial rooftop solar facilities produced electricity for themselves and for export to the grid and occasionally also buy electricity from the grid.

These customers have two meters, one for export and one for import. Smaller systems use the Feed-In Tariff (FiT) mechanism. 

Thus under a PPA, HELCO might buy solar energy at 20 cents per kilowatt-hour and sell electricity at 45 cents per kilowatt-hour. Clearly this would not be profitable for owners of small residential rooftop solar facilities. 

Rooftop solar owners also don't like to be net importers of electricity from the grid.

Instead, people with rooftop solar overbuild their solar system and wind up giving the utility free electricity rather than the alternative of buying electricity from the grid.

The utility opines that Net Energy Metering customers are a burden on the 89% who are non-Net Energy Metering customers.

The utility argues that Net Energy Metering customers get free use of the grid without paying for it.

The utility asserts that they must maintain the grid but only non-Net Energy Metering customers wind up paying for it.

The utility does not track free electricity. 

Rather, to keep their analysis simply, the utility distort reality by assuming that there is no free electricity.

All of the utility price analyses assume there is no free electricity.

There is another approach that is possible.

The utility could track free electricity. At the end of the year the utility could note how many kWh were given to the utility for free by each customer.

Customers could make a tax-deductible charitable donation of that free electricity to a non-profit which would allocate that credit to those that are economically challenged.

Thus the benefits of renewable energy would not only go to economically secure people but would be spread across the economic spectrum.

#      #      #

Friday, April 18, 2014

U.S. Department of Energy to hold public hearings on energy policy

By Henry Curtis

Related Articles:

 The U.S. Department of Energy has published the Hawaii Clean Energy Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS).

The public comment period ends on July 17, 2014. Comments may be sent by email to

The Draft PEIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with 31 energy efficiency activities and renewable energy technologies that could assist the State of Hawaii in meeting  the goals established under the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI).

The Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI) was an agreement between Republican Governor Lingle, Republican President Bush and Hawaiian Electric Company.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed in January 2008 and an Energy Agreement was signed in October 2008.

The MOU established working groups to address key sectors of the energy economy (e.g., electricity, end-use efficiency, transportation, and fuels) which allegedly led to the Energy Agreement.

Life of the Land had to file the State equivalent of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to find out who served on the committees and who the chairs were. Subsequent to the release of the information Life of the Land asked some committee members how policies were developed. They were as much in the dark as those who did not participate in the secret process.

The HCEI Agreement focused on rewarding HECO and Big Wind developers. Among the ideas presented in the HCEI Energy Agreement was doing away with Net Energy Metering and affirming that a shift to renewable energy would raise rates in the short run.

For five years the HCEI Energy Agreement was available only as a non-searchable pdf document that prevented copying sections. Life of the Land has since made a copy available which is searchable and which allows copying.

On December 14, 2010, DOE issued a notice of intent to prepare a PEIS, with the State of Hawaii as a joint lead, on the wind phase of the Hawaii Interisland Renewable Energy Program.

In light of scoping comments and regulatory and policy developments, DOE  was forced to follow federal law and to broadened the range of reasonable energy efficiency and renewable  energy activities and technologies to be analyzed in the PEIS and  issued an amended notice of intent to prepare the Hawaii Clean Energy  PEIS.

The Hawaii Clean Energy Draft PEIS was prepared with assistance from the Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region  9, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, National Park Service, Natural  Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Navy, and  the Federal Aviation Administration.

The purpose of the PEIS is to allow DOE to develop guidance so DOE can create a guidance document to shape its expenditures. The No Action Alternative states the DOE will do the same thing but without a guidance document. With or without a guidance document, DOE will continue to fund projects with inadequate public disclosure.

The second purpose of the document is to streamline future Environmental Impact Statements. The future EISs will be able to say that alternatives were examined in this document.

DOE will hold a series of public meetings

May 12: Kauai, Kauai War Memorial, Convention Hall, 4191 Hardy Street, Lihue, HI 96766.

May 13: Hawaii, Kealakehe High School, 74-5000 Puohulihuli Street, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740.

May 14: Hawaii, Aunty Sally Kaleohano's Luau Hale, 799 Piilani Street, Hilo, HI 96720.

May 15: Maui, Pomaikai Elementary School, 4650 South Kamehameha Avenue, Kahului, HI 96732.

May 19: Molokai, Kaunakakai Elementary School, 30 Ailoa Street, Kaunakakai, HI 96748.

May 20: Lanai, Lanai High & Elementary School, 555 Fraser Avenue, Lanai City, HI 96763.

May 21: Oahu, Kawananakoa Middle School, 49 Funchal Street, Honolulu, HI 96813.

May 22: Oahu, James B. Castle High School, 45-386 Kaneohe Bay Drive, Kaneohe, HI 96744.

Each hearing will begin at 5:00 p.m. and end at 8:30 p.m. Each hearing will start with a 45-minute open house. The open house will be followed by a 15-minute presentation by Dr. Summerson. Then the public will have two and a half hours to make comments.

A court reporter will transcribe the comments presented at each hearing. Individuals wishing to speak at a hearing should register when they arrive. DOE will initially allot three minutes to each commenter to ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to speak.

#      #      #

Thursday, April 17, 2014

The Hawai’i Energy Policy Forum turns 12

By Henry Curtis

According to its own mythology, “the Hawaii Energy Policy Forum had its beginnings in May 2002, when the University of Hawaii at Manoa was funded by the Hawaiian Electric Company to bring together energy stakeholders to chart a new future for energy in Hawaii.”

In May and June 2002 the Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) was in the final weeks of its three decade attempt to ram through the highly unpopular Wa`ahila Ridge 138-kV Transmission Line.

HECO gave the transmission project more than a dozen names over its long history and filed for three Conservation District Use Applications. HECO consultants wrote two Environmental Assessments and three Environmental Impact Statements.

A State law was passed requiring public hearings for overhead high voltage transmission lines built through residential communities.

HECO decided they needed a new approach, “a collaborative effort of government, business, academe, and community.”

HECO funded the Hawaii Energy Policy Forum (HEPF) through the Social Science Research Institute (SSRI) at the University of Hawaii, Manoa.

Initial meetings were secret. Meeting notices were not posted anywhere. The meetings were by invitation only. The public was not allowed to attend except with permission.

SSRI served as the ceremonial leader. HECO pretended they were playing absolutely no role in organizing or running the meetings, but they were in fact pulling the strings and controlling the process.

The 30 forum members who attended the inaugural June 10, 2002 HEPF meeting were Don Thomas, Matt Matsunaga, Jeff Mikulina, Mina Morita, Gregg Kinkley, Yukio Naito, Robbie Alm, Scott Seu, David Waller, Mike Hamnett, John Harrison, Sharon Miyashiro, Sam Pintz, Rick Rocheleau, John Crouch, Ruby Hargrave, Hideto Kono, Brenner Munger, Karen Nakamura, Andy Nomura, Gayle Ohashi, Richard Paglinawan, Rick Reed, Murray Towill, Keith Yoshida, Eileen Yoshinaka, Faye Hirono; Christy Alarcon, Regina Gregory and Irene Takata.

Guests showed up at subsequent meetings: Maurice Kaya, Catherine Awakuni and Chris Nakagawa on July 23, 2002, Bruce Anderson on December 9, 2002, and Jerry Sumida, Heidi Sumida and Cully Judd on January 17, 2003.
In March 2003 the HEPF expanded its membership with six new members: Ray Carr, Energy Coordinator for the Big Island; Kal Kobayashi, Energy Coordinator for Maui; Bruce Miller, Director of the UH Center for Sustainability;  Steve Holmes, Energy Coordinator for the City and County of Honolulu; Susan Kusunoki (Tesoro); and Senator Kalani English, Chair of the Senate Energy and Environment Committee. Also attending were Carl Freedman and Warren Bollmeier.

Crashing the March meeting were Life of the Land’s Kat Brady and Henry Curtis.

UH programs were converted into HEPF programs. HECO-funded work at the University was transformed into the HEPF Cultural Issues Working Group (CIWG).

The early goal of the HEPF and the CIWG was to develop a “preferred future” that coincided with what HECO was planning to do anyway.

At first the HEPF was funded entirely by HECO, but then subsequently funding was provided by the Legislature. Then that tap ran dry.

Who now funds HEPF is a mystery. So is their annual budget.

I tried to unravel the financial structure of HEPF but to no avail. It appeared that at most one or two people had any idea how the funding works. So I must leave this effort to others.  

The meetings and agendas are now public. Representation has been expanded. Staff members to Hawai’i’s Congressional delegation, state Legislators, County Energy Coordinators, Energy Trade Groups, the fossil fuel industry and renewable energy companies all serve as HEPF members.

HEPF co-chairs are Dr. Sharon Moriwaki (Miyashiro) and Michael Hamnett 

Jay Fidell (ThinkTechHawaii) serves as the Chair of the Communication & Outreach Working Group. The Communication & Outreach Vice Chairs are Peter Rosegg (HECO) and Mitch Ewan (Hawaii Natural Energy Institute).


The current members of the Forum are largely fossil fuel companies, regulators, legislators and governmental types.

The members are Jeanne Schultz Afuvai (Hawaii Institute for Public Affairs), William Kaneko (Hawaii Institute for Public Affairs), Ron Nelson (Defense Energy Support Center), Tim O'Connell (USDA) and Joelle Simonpietri (US Pacific Command).

Senator Mike Gabbard, Rep. Chris Lee, Rachel James (Tulsi Gabbard), Dale Hahn (Senator Brian Schatz), Wintehn K. T. Park (Colleen Hanabusa), Lauren Montez-Hernandez (Mazie Hirono)

Hermina Morita (Chair, Public Utilities Commission), Maria Tome (PUC), Jeffrey Ono (Division of Consumer Advocacy), Randolph Perreira (Division of Consumer Advocacy), Mark Glick (DBEDT), H. Ray Starling (Hawaii Energy)

Justin Gruenstein (City and County of Honolulu), Kal Kobayashi (Maui County Energy Office), Doug McLeod (Maui County), William Rolston (Hawaii County), Ben Sullivan (Kauai County).

Joseph Boivin (Hawaii Gas), Albert Chee (Chevron), Dan Giovanni (HECO), Jim Kelly (Kauai Island Utility Cooperative), Melissa Pavlicek (Gas Lobbyist, Hawaii Public Policy Advocates), Lance Tanaka (Tesoro).

Mitch Ewan (Hawaii Natural Energy Institute), Mike Hamnett (Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii), Stephen Meder (University of Hawaii at Manoa), Sharon (Miyashiro) Moriwaki (University of Hawaii at Manoa), Rick Rocheleau (Hawaii Natural Energy Institute).

Jay Fidell (ThinkTech Hawaii), Kyle Datta (Ulupono Initiative), Laura Dierenfield (Queen Liliuokalani Trust), Gladys Marrone (Building Industry Association of Hawaii), Riley Saito (SunPower), Ah Linn Yamane (HGEA).

Carl Freedman (Haiku Design & Analysis), Darren Kimura (Enerdigm Group), Warren Bollmeier (Hawaii Renewable Energy Alliance), Leslie Cole-Brooks (Hawaii Solar Energy Association), Kelly King (Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance), Robert Harris (Sierra Club Hawaii Chapter), Elizabeth Cole (Kohala Center).

#      #      #