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