The Public Utilities Commission issued an Order on April 10, 2008 establishing the procedural timeline for the HECO-Imperium Biofuels Supply Contract contested case hearing.
HECO would not submit Direct Testimony. The Consumer Advocate and Life of the Land would simultaneously file our Direct Testimony on June 23-24. The Evidentiary Hearing will be the week of October 6, 2008.
We did file. 12 witnesses, 367 pages. (click to see filing)
The Consumer Advocate waited until after we filed our Direct Testimony to inform us that
(1) they had no witnesses;
(2) none of their staff had signed the Protective Agreement;
(3) they hadn't completed their analysis;
(4) HECO had not sent over any Level One or Level Two Confidential Information; and
(5) they want the date of the Evidentiary Hearing moved back six weeks.
It has now been over 3 weeks since the Consumer Advocate failed to file their Direct Testimony. It is less than 3 weeks to the new deadline that they want.
But the Public Utilities Commission has not yet made a ruling.
Life of the Land finds this ironic in a docket that the Public Utilities Commission stated on January 10, 2008: ''The commission is aware of the need to expediently resolve the issues in this docket in preparation for the CIP project; it therefore intends to fast-track these proceedings.''
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
LOL Letter to the PUC
June 27, 2008
Carlito Caliboso, Chair
Public Utilities Commission
465 S. King St, Room 103
Honolulu, HI 96813
re: Docket 2007-0346 (HECO-Imperium Biofuel Supply Docket)
Aloha Chair Caliboso,
Normally the Public Utilities Commission's Stipulated Procedural Order states specific dates that specific events will occur. In this docket the dates are strung together by the passage between dates, with only the first date, and the week of the Evidentiary Hearing spelled out. One date fell on Memorial Day and thus the filing was due the following day. The next filing was due four weeks later, that is, four weeks from either Memorial Day or the day after. To be safe we filed on the first of the two possible dates (Monday, June 23, 2008), on the second of the two dates (Tuesday, June 24, 2008) we were informed by the Consumer Advocate that they would need a delay.
The Consumer Advocate ("CA") said they needed extra time because there was a mix-up, that the Consumer Advocate's office has signed Protective Orders but Hawaiian Electric Company (''HECO'') had not received them. The CA informed us that HECO never provided their office with any confidential information. Therefore they would need a month to get and review the confidential information.
I informed Ms. Awakuni that we needed to discuss the matter with our Board of Directors before approving this request.
On Tuesday, June 24, 2008, the CA wrote a letter to the Public Utilities Commission (''Commission'' or ''PUC'') requesting a six week delay: ''The Consumer Advocate has discussed this request with HECO and Life of the Land ("LOL") and has been informed that neither has an objection to the request provided that LOL may supplement its Direct Testimony.''
On Wednesday, June 25, 2008, I called the CA and requested a copy of the letter. After receiving it I told the CA that I needed to discuss the matter with our Board of Directors before approving that request. At the time I did not have authorization, but now I do.
I asked the CA who their witnesses were, and they said that they have no witnesses, but are in negotiations with one potential witness.
On Thursday, August 26, 2008 I visited the PUC Office and reviewed the files for this docket. There I found two relevant documents in the files:
* On May 7, 2008, HECO made a filing which read in part: ''Upon the execution and filing of the Protective Order(s), HECO will provide the confidential information and the Level Two Confidential Information to the Consumer Advocate.''
* On May 27, 2008, HECO filed their Responses to Information Requests, noting: ''The response to CA-IR-3, page 1, contains Level Two Confidential Information, and this information has been redacted. Pursuant to Protective Order No. 24145, filed April 10, 2008, an unredacted copy of page 1 of CA-IR-3 is attached in a sealed envelope, and this information is being provided to the Commission and the Consumer Advocate, and is not being provided to LOL.''
The obvious questions are how HECO thinks that the CA should be entitled to confidential information on May 27 but not May 7; why the CA thinks they did not get the confidential information; and why the only signed Protective Orders in the PUC file were signed by Life of the Land.
The May 7, 2008 HECO filing was 10 pages with two confidential attachments, one of 74 pages and the other of 118 pages.
The PUC's Protective Order (page 11) states: ''For any information designated by HECO to be Level Two Confidential Information, HECO must specifically identify and/or describe to the commission, the Consumer Advocate and LOL the information being so designated and provide information from which the commission and the parties can determine the appropriateness of HECO’s designation.''
We were unaware of the 192 pages of confidential information and have not been given any information to determine whether we agree that HECO's designation is appropriate.
Docket 2007-0346 continues to amaze us.
We find it ironic that the proponent for 100% biofuels asked for the delay on the very last day to file. (In Docket 05-0145, in 2006, HECO engineers had favored starting with a mixture of 50% biofuels/50% petroluem fuels and gradually increasing the ratio but HECO decided to start at 100% biofuels based on the strong suggestion by the CA).
We were granted intervenor status as full parties over HECO’s objections. After we were admitted into the Docket we were informed that
* HECO would not be presenting a Direct Case with witnesses
* HECO would only present rebuttal witnesses to LOL’s case
* LOL was not entitled to receive the information necessary to put forth a case
Isn’t it strange that a state agency (the CA) with a budget and a staff is asking for a delay in this ‘fast-tracked’ docket and a two person, financially-challenged nonprofit environmental group who are currently parties in 6 PUC dockets as well as handling numerous other environmental and community issues could meet the deadline?
Now, after we are the only party to file testimony in this docket, we are told that for whatever reason, the CA needs to delay their concurrent filing.
Isn’t it peculiar that the CA asked for this delay AFTER receiving LOL’s filing?
And isn’t it odd that HECO so readily agreed to the delay when the PUC fast-tracked this docket?
As the PUC emphasized that this is a "fast tracked" docket, we respectfully request in fairness that the Evidentiary Hearing scheduled for the week of October 6, 2008 proceed, as we have lined up our witnesses based on that schedule.
LOL also plans to supplement our filing.
With the advent of the PUC's new data management system:
Does the PUC require that only the original copy be filed?
If the PUC requires only one copy, shouldn't the other parties only need one copy each?
Shouldn't everyone send electronic as well as hard copies to each other?
We would appreciate your response in writing.
Mahalo.
Henry Curtis
Vice President for Consumer Issues
cc: HECO, CA
Carlito Caliboso, Chair
Public Utilities Commission
465 S. King St, Room 103
Honolulu, HI 96813
re: Docket 2007-0346 (HECO-Imperium Biofuel Supply Docket)
Aloha Chair Caliboso,
Normally the Public Utilities Commission's Stipulated Procedural Order states specific dates that specific events will occur. In this docket the dates are strung together by the passage between dates, with only the first date, and the week of the Evidentiary Hearing spelled out. One date fell on Memorial Day and thus the filing was due the following day. The next filing was due four weeks later, that is, four weeks from either Memorial Day or the day after. To be safe we filed on the first of the two possible dates (Monday, June 23, 2008), on the second of the two dates (Tuesday, June 24, 2008) we were informed by the Consumer Advocate that they would need a delay.
The Consumer Advocate ("CA") said they needed extra time because there was a mix-up, that the Consumer Advocate's office has signed Protective Orders but Hawaiian Electric Company (''HECO'') had not received them. The CA informed us that HECO never provided their office with any confidential information. Therefore they would need a month to get and review the confidential information.
I informed Ms. Awakuni that we needed to discuss the matter with our Board of Directors before approving this request.
On Tuesday, June 24, 2008, the CA wrote a letter to the Public Utilities Commission (''Commission'' or ''PUC'') requesting a six week delay: ''The Consumer Advocate has discussed this request with HECO and Life of the Land ("LOL") and has been informed that neither has an objection to the request provided that LOL may supplement its Direct Testimony.''
On Wednesday, June 25, 2008, I called the CA and requested a copy of the letter. After receiving it I told the CA that I needed to discuss the matter with our Board of Directors before approving that request. At the time I did not have authorization, but now I do.
I asked the CA who their witnesses were, and they said that they have no witnesses, but are in negotiations with one potential witness.
On Thursday, August 26, 2008 I visited the PUC Office and reviewed the files for this docket. There I found two relevant documents in the files:
* On May 7, 2008, HECO made a filing which read in part: ''Upon the execution and filing of the Protective Order(s), HECO will provide the confidential information and the Level Two Confidential Information to the Consumer Advocate.''
* On May 27, 2008, HECO filed their Responses to Information Requests, noting: ''The response to CA-IR-3, page 1, contains Level Two Confidential Information, and this information has been redacted. Pursuant to Protective Order No. 24145, filed April 10, 2008, an unredacted copy of page 1 of CA-IR-3 is attached in a sealed envelope, and this information is being provided to the Commission and the Consumer Advocate, and is not being provided to LOL.''
The obvious questions are how HECO thinks that the CA should be entitled to confidential information on May 27 but not May 7; why the CA thinks they did not get the confidential information; and why the only signed Protective Orders in the PUC file were signed by Life of the Land.
The May 7, 2008 HECO filing was 10 pages with two confidential attachments, one of 74 pages and the other of 118 pages.
The PUC's Protective Order (page 11) states: ''For any information designated by HECO to be Level Two Confidential Information, HECO must specifically identify and/or describe to the commission, the Consumer Advocate and LOL the information being so designated and provide information from which the commission and the parties can determine the appropriateness of HECO’s designation.''
We were unaware of the 192 pages of confidential information and have not been given any information to determine whether we agree that HECO's designation is appropriate.
Docket 2007-0346 continues to amaze us.
We find it ironic that the proponent for 100% biofuels asked for the delay on the very last day to file. (In Docket 05-0145, in 2006, HECO engineers had favored starting with a mixture of 50% biofuels/50% petroluem fuels and gradually increasing the ratio but HECO decided to start at 100% biofuels based on the strong suggestion by the CA).
We were granted intervenor status as full parties over HECO’s objections. After we were admitted into the Docket we were informed that
* HECO would not be presenting a Direct Case with witnesses
* HECO would only present rebuttal witnesses to LOL’s case
* LOL was not entitled to receive the information necessary to put forth a case
Isn’t it strange that a state agency (the CA) with a budget and a staff is asking for a delay in this ‘fast-tracked’ docket and a two person, financially-challenged nonprofit environmental group who are currently parties in 6 PUC dockets as well as handling numerous other environmental and community issues could meet the deadline?
Now, after we are the only party to file testimony in this docket, we are told that for whatever reason, the CA needs to delay their concurrent filing.
Isn’t it peculiar that the CA asked for this delay AFTER receiving LOL’s filing?
And isn’t it odd that HECO so readily agreed to the delay when the PUC fast-tracked this docket?
As the PUC emphasized that this is a "fast tracked" docket, we respectfully request in fairness that the Evidentiary Hearing scheduled for the week of October 6, 2008 proceed, as we have lined up our witnesses based on that schedule.
LOL also plans to supplement our filing.
With the advent of the PUC's new data management system:
Does the PUC require that only the original copy be filed?
If the PUC requires only one copy, shouldn't the other parties only need one copy each?
Shouldn't everyone send electronic as well as hard copies to each other?
We would appreciate your response in writing.
Mahalo.
Henry Curtis
Vice President for Consumer Issues
cc: HECO, CA
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Ain't no sunshine at the PUC
Last week Life of the Land filed our discovery questions to HECO regarding the HECO-Imperium Biofuels Contract. We also filed 10 copies with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
In that filing we noted that the PUC has a serious problem with sunshine.
Each month the PUC opens between 20 and 50 new regulatory proceedings a.k.a. dockets on transportation, water, electricity, gas, sewerage, and telecommunications.
The public has 20 days to file a Motion to Intervene from the date that the docket is opened.
The public can find out about new dockets in two ways:
(1) Visiting the website of the Office of the Consumer Advocate (Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): the last new docket posted by the CA was for a filing dated in March 2007.
(2) By visiting the PUC office and looking in their binders. The last new docket posted was for March 31, 2007.
New docket are never posted on the PUC website.
Well after the Intervention Window has passed, one can find out after the fact that a docket was opened. The PUC publishes copies of its Decision and Orders which establish who was admitted into a docket. May 2008 Decision and Orders are avilable at the PUC Office, except the 15 of them are ''missing''. There is a 15 docket gap ! In the interest of open government, we should know who decides what gets left out and why.
It is now Tuesday, May 20, 2008. Still no posting of April new dockets. Eight days after we apprised them of the problem. The public has no way to determine what was opened, and no time left to intervene.
This problem is not new. The HECO-Imperium docket was opened on October 18, 2007. The 20-day window ended on Novermber 7, 2007. The PUC first made this information available on November 8, 2007.
The PUC established the timeline in this docket, informing us on April 26, 2008 that our discovery questions were due that day.
The PUC has accepted HECO's Application and approved HECO's request to submit no Testimony in support of their Application. The PUC approved HECO's request that Life of the Land, as a full intervenor, must present our case first and then HECO will seek to rebut it.
Ironically, the newest PUC Commission is the former Director of the Office of Information Practices (OIP) -- the agency responsible for enforcing the open records law.
Is this anyway to run an agency. Or, can we say, transparency.
Audits of the PUC in 1961, 1975, 1989 and 2003 have all said the same thing. They all said that the PUC is reactive not proactive and is not consumer friendly. The first audit was done by the University of Hawaii, the last three by the Legislative Reference Bureau. An audit without follow thru is meaningless.
Perhaps the 2009 Legislature can get around to solving the half century old problem of sunshine at the PUC.
As the Governor said in her A New Beginning for Hawai`i (page 4): ''Restoring integrity to government requires us to share information openly with the public so that the people of Hawai`i will know thw true condition of the state government, the programs it operates and the results of its efforts.''
In that filing we noted that the PUC has a serious problem with sunshine.
Each month the PUC opens between 20 and 50 new regulatory proceedings a.k.a. dockets on transportation, water, electricity, gas, sewerage, and telecommunications.
The public has 20 days to file a Motion to Intervene from the date that the docket is opened.
The public can find out about new dockets in two ways:
(1) Visiting the website of the Office of the Consumer Advocate (Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): the last new docket posted by the CA was for a filing dated in March 2007.
(2) By visiting the PUC office and looking in their binders. The last new docket posted was for March 31, 2007.
New docket are never posted on the PUC website.
Well after the Intervention Window has passed, one can find out after the fact that a docket was opened. The PUC publishes copies of its Decision and Orders which establish who was admitted into a docket. May 2008 Decision and Orders are avilable at the PUC Office, except the 15 of them are ''missing''. There is a 15 docket gap ! In the interest of open government, we should know who decides what gets left out and why.
It is now Tuesday, May 20, 2008. Still no posting of April new dockets. Eight days after we apprised them of the problem. The public has no way to determine what was opened, and no time left to intervene.
This problem is not new. The HECO-Imperium docket was opened on October 18, 2007. The 20-day window ended on Novermber 7, 2007. The PUC first made this information available on November 8, 2007.
The PUC established the timeline in this docket, informing us on April 26, 2008 that our discovery questions were due that day.
The PUC has accepted HECO's Application and approved HECO's request to submit no Testimony in support of their Application. The PUC approved HECO's request that Life of the Land, as a full intervenor, must present our case first and then HECO will seek to rebut it.
Ironically, the newest PUC Commission is the former Director of the Office of Information Practices (OIP) -- the agency responsible for enforcing the open records law.
Is this anyway to run an agency. Or, can we say, transparency.
Audits of the PUC in 1961, 1975, 1989 and 2003 have all said the same thing. They all said that the PUC is reactive not proactive and is not consumer friendly. The first audit was done by the University of Hawaii, the last three by the Legislative Reference Bureau. An audit without follow thru is meaningless.
Perhaps the 2009 Legislature can get around to solving the half century old problem of sunshine at the PUC.
As the Governor said in her A New Beginning for Hawai`i (page 4): ''Restoring integrity to government requires us to share information openly with the public so that the people of Hawai`i will know thw true condition of the state government, the programs it operates and the results of its efforts.''
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
HECO-Imperium Biofuels Docket
Hawaii Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Regulatory Proceeding (Docket No. 2007-0346) re Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) - Imperium Services (Imperium Renewables) Biofuel Supply Contract Docket. Parties: HECO, Consumer Advocate, Life of the Land (38 year old environmental and community action group and utility watchdog). HECO plans to use biofuel to generate electricity. Imperium Renewables plans to Import Palm Oil subject to NRDC - HECO sustainable biofuels agreement.
Statement of Issues (PUC Order 24144 dated April 10, 2008)
1. Are the terms and conditions of HECO’s Biodiesel Supply Contract with Imperium reasonable, prudent, and in the public interest?
2. Is it reasonable for HECO to include the costs for biodiesel fuel, transportation, storage, and related taxes incurred pursuant to the Imperium Contract in its [ECAC], to the extent that they are not recovered in HECO’s base rates?
3. Is it reasonable for HECO to use biodiesel blended with no more than 0.2% petroleum diesel in order to benefit from the Federal biofuel blender’s credit?
4. Is it reasonable, prudent and in the public interest for HECO to enter into the subject biofuel supply contract even though it does not expressly
(1) require meeting the Internal Revenue Service’s requirements to qualify for any available tax credits, including, the renewable fuel mixture tax credits; and
(2) require the satisfaction of biofuels sustainability principles contained in HECO and Natural Resources Defense Council’s Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil Principles and Criteria?
Timeline (PUC Order 24144 dated April 10, 2008)
1. HECO Application October 18, 2007
2. Other Parties’ Information Requests to HECO, April 28, 2008
3. HECO’s Responses to Information Requests, May 26, 2008
4. Written Testimonies, Exhibits and Workpapers of Other Parties, June 23, 2008
5. Information Requests to Other Parties, July 7, 2008
6. Other Parties’ Responses to Information Requests, July 28, 2008
7. HECO’s Written Rebuttal Testimonies, Exhibits, and Workpapers, August 18, 2008
8. Other Parties’ Information Requests to HECO, September 1, 2008
9. HECO’s Responses to Information Requests, September 22, 2008
10. Prehearing Conference Week of September 29, 2008, subject to the call of the commission.
11. Evidentiary Hearing Oral Argument Week of October 6, 2008, subject to the call of the commission.
12. Simultaneous Proposed Findings of Facts/Conclusions of Law 3 weeks after filing of the Evidentiary Hearing transcript.
13. Simultaneous Comments to Proposed Findings of Facts/Conclusions of Law 2 weeks after the filing of Findings of Facts/Conclusions of Law.
HECO Application (PUC Order 24144 dated April 10, 2008)
The HECO Application included narrative exhibits that were intended to support the Application in lieu of directtestimony. This narrative presentation has been used by HECO in other fuel contract proceedings, e.g., In theMatter of the Application of Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. for Approval of Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Contract Amendments with Chevron Products Company and Tesoro Hawaii Corporation and to Include Contract Amendments Costs in HECO’s Energy Cost Adjustment Clause, Decision and Order No. 21522, Docket No. 04-0128 (filed Dec. 30, 2004).
Protective Order (PUC Order 24145 dated April 10, 2008)
HECO intends to provide only to the Consumer Advocate and the Commission certain confidential information regarding contract pricing and related pricing provisions that is not pertinent to LOL’s [c]oncerns but which is necessary in order for the agencies to carry out their respective statutory duties and obligations (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Level Two Confidential Information”)
If HECO designates information as confidential pursuant to paragraph 4 above or paragraph 6 below, it shall produce the Confidential Information in accordance with the procedures described in paragraphs 11 through 14 below, and concurrently provide that Confidential Information in writing to the Commission and the Consumer Advocate.
Furthermore, HECO shall: describe the document containing the Confidential Information with reasonable specificity;
(2) identify, in reasonable detail, the information’s source, character, and location,
(3) state clearly the basis for the claim that the document and/or information qualifies as Confidential Information, and
(4) describe the harm or prejudice to HECO from any misuse or unauthorized disclosure of the information.
HECO shall provide the information described above concerning the Confidential Information to the Commission, the Consumer Advocate and LOL. HECO shall bear the burden of proof in supporting its claim of confidentiality.
If LOL determines that the Confidential Information is relevant and necessary to support its position in this docket, LOL may request that the Commission determine whether the information should be disclosed to it under the terms of this protective order. Any challenge to the confidentiality of any information shall be made in accordance with paragraph 24 below.
To the extent that any of the documents covered by this protective order consist of “government records,” as defined in HRS Section 92F-3, the provisions of HRS Chapter 92F (“Uniform Information Practices Act” or “UIPA”) shall apply to the disclosure of information contained in such documents.
PUC Orders 24144, 24145
http://hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/dca/dno/dno2008/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
