“It’s time we give geothermal a chance to succeed.”
So spake Big Island Mayor Lorraine Inouye on May 13, addressing a rally in Hilo attended by 5,000 people.
Those in attendance were deemed to be supporters of geothermal energy development merely by the fact of their presence — although this ignores pressures that may have been placed upon them by employers to attend, or the lure of good food and music. Our own spy in the audience reported that a fair number of the people he talked with, while standing in the free-food-and-beer line, had not a clue about geothermal, but were only there because they had been told to show up. When told they would have to sign a petition in support of geothermal energy to get free eats and beer, they willingly signed. To say that by their presence they cast a vote for geothermal energy might be a stretch.
In any event, the crowd’s sheer size was hailed as a sign of strong political support. No less important, however, were the speakers. Those included Governor John Waihe`e, Lieutenant Governor Ben Cayetano, Mayor Inouye, and a host of less bright, but no less ambitious, political lights.
‘Give Geo a Chance’?
The theme struck by Inouye’s remarks is typical of the sentiment of many supporters of geothermal energy. Their view may be summarized as follows:
Geothermal energy is a benign source of renewable energy; its development will contribute to Hawai`i’s moving in the direction of some kind of “energy independence;” the commercial development of geothermal energy has been hindered by a small group of ne’er-do-well haole carpetbaggers and Hawaiian fringe groups who have no interest in the state’s prosperity; because of their squawking, the process of developing geothermal energy has been slowed to the point where it is nearly dead in the water; it is, therefore, time for all those favoring geothermal energy to stand up and be counted; by pushing together and voting en bloc for candidates supporting geothermal development, we can give geothermal energy the chance it has never had.
But not one of those claims withstands close scrutiny.
First and foremost, the portrayal of geothermal energy as a victim of benighted activists flies in the face of the history of efforts to develop it. Since 1972, government agencies have been contributing tax dollars to research and exploration preliminary to its commercial development. By our own reckoning, based on as comprehensive review as possible of state and federal documents, from 1972 to 1990, more than $92 million in tax dollars had been spent in furtherance of geothermal energy’s development in that time.
Moreover, geothermal energy’s would-be developers have been extended a generous hand by state policy-makers. When the Campbell Estate land originally intended for exploration and development was overrun with lava, the state generously exchanged its own land, at Wao Kele o Puna, with Campbell Estate to allow geothermal development to proceed. When developers complained of the lengthy permitting process, the state responded with an expedited review. When they required emission permits from the Department of Health for venting of gases containing hydrogen sulfide, the DOH circumvented statutory rule-making procedures, issued permits based on temporary, ad-hoc standards, and then suspended any effort to develop permanent rules.
No one can argue reasonably that the full-blown development of geothermal energy will not have a substantial environmental impact. Nonetheless, for years, the state attempted to sidestep requirements for an environmental impact statement, with permits being granted piecemeal.
What More?
In the last year, three court decisions have gone against geothermal developers at the federal and state levels. Does giving geothermal energy a chance mean suspending federal and state laws?
Again, in the last year, the operators of Puna Geothermal Venture experienced catastrophic blowouts, determined by panels of independent engineers to be the result of ineptitude more than any other single factor. Does giving geothermal energy a chance mean that potentially life-threatening mistakes should be condoned?
History does not support a reading of geothermal energy as an underdog. If anything, had its supporters had their way, it would be a runaway locomotive. That it has failed is as much owing to the blundering of its developers as it is to any actions of geothermal opponents. The problem is not that geothermal energy has not been given any chance to succeed. If anything, it has been given one chance too many.
What Next?
The Supreme Court order overturning the Department of Health’s permitting of True Geothermal’s operations (excerpted in the April 1992 [url=/members_archives/archives_more.php?id=812_0_32_0_C]”Document” column[/url] of Environment Hawai`i) occurred as the Legislature was in session. In response to that order, one of geothermal energy’s best friends, Senator Richard Matsuura of Hilo, attempted to establish emissions standards for hydrogen sulfide legislatively by amending a bill vital to the Department of Health.
Matsuura’s last-minute effort to undo the court order was opposed vehemently by Senator Andrew Levin, who represents the Puna District of the Big Island (where the bulk of geothermal development is expected to occur) and most of the organizations that have opposed geothermal energy. The amendment died thereafter — only to be resurrected by Matsuura again, in another bill being considered by the Senate Committee on Agriculture and the Environment, whose chairman is Anthony Chang. When Chang refused to pass the bill out for a vote on the Senate floor (Chang stated that the bill was flawed), Matsuura protested. Had the bill come to the floor for a vote, Matsuura stated, it would have passed; he claimed to have the 13 votes needed for its passage.
Levin (whose comments to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, considering Matsuura’s amendment, were seconded by Rep. Jerry Chang, also of the Big Island) took some heat from Matsuura over his remarks. Rising to Matsuura’s defense was the Big Island Labor Alliance, which, according to West Hawai`i Today, demanded that Levin apologize to Matsuura. Levin had “dishonestly smeared the integrity” of Matsuura, the group claimed.
Hydrogen Sulfide Rules
Last fall, when the Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments in the case that resulted eventually in the determination that the Health Department’s issuance of a permit to True Geothermal was illegal, one of the justices inquired of the deputy attorney general representing the state why all progress in promulgating hydrogen sulfide emission standards had been stalled for nearly a decade. No sooner had True received the permit than all discernible movement in the direction of permanent emission rules ceased, the justice noted.
The attorney’s response was to plead guilty to an “overabundance of caution” — portrayed as a laudable desire to avoid hasty, ill-considered action that would leave the state vulnerable to further legal challenge.
Now that the Supreme Court has spoken, that “overabundance of caution” is nowhere to be found. With both the True and the Puna Geothermal Venture operations on hold pending final rules, the DOH is charging down the rule-making road at near warp speed.
The proposed standards call for an “alert” to be issued when the level of hydrogen sulfide reaches 25 parts per billion as an hourly average; a “warning” would be issued at 100 ppb; and an “emergency” would be declared at 1,000 ppb. The emergency level would probably trigger evacuation of nearby residents. (In the PGV plant blowout last June, hydrogen sulfide levels reached 29 parts per million — or roughly 30 times the proposed “emergency” standard — outside the fence line marking the perimeter of the well site.)
Mother Nature as Polluter?
In mid-May, at the height of debate over the proposed emissions standards, the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory’s scientist in charge, David Clague, wrote in the weekly “Volcano Watch” column (published in the Hawai`i Tribune-Herald) that Kilauea Volcano was a far greater source of hydrogen sulfide emissions than any geothermal well would ever be. During vigorous eruption, Kilauea could be expected to emit between 60,000 and 120,000 pounds per day of hydrogen sulfide, Clague wrote. When the volcano was not erupting, it still would be releasing daily between 4,000 and 12,000 pounds of hydrogen sulfide.
Clague’s report was taken by geothermal energy’s champions as a vindication of their position. Hawaii Island Geothermal Alliance executive director Bill Cook described it as “creditable comment” that bolstered his group’s criticisms of the proposed DOH standards as “far too restrictive” (as quoted in the Hawai`i Tribune-Herald).
Clague himself would seem to have invited this interpretation by both the timing of his column as well as the comparison he makes in it between the natural volcanic emissions, on the one hand, and the “estimates of hydrogen sulfide emissions from a properly abated geothermal plant,” which he states range from 40 to 100 pounds per day for a 25-megawatt facility.
But, as Clague notes, “the estimate for hydrogen sulfide emission” from the volcano “has a high level of uncertainty.” He explains that it cannot be measured directly. It is oxidized and hydrated within about 18 hours of its emission, he writes, and therefore “is rarely detected, even near the summit.”
By Clague’s acknowledgement, hydrogen sulfide that occurs as a result of natural venting does not last long enough in the atmosphere to permit scientists to detect it. To be exposed to it, in other words, one would have to live at the lip of the crater — in which case the health risks of inhaling hydrogen sulfide would be overshadowed by the greater risk of immolation.
The conditions that allow naturally emitted hydrogen sulfide to dissipate in the atmosphere are not present in the same degree for the emissions from geothermal wells. Additionally, geothermal operations — especially that of Puna Geothermal Venture — are close enough to populated areas so that even very low levels of hydrogen sulfide emissions can inconvenience, if not in fact harm, nearby residents.
Harry Kim, the county Civil Defense administrator, was apparently neither surprised nor impressed by Clague’s figures. He told the Hawai`i Tribune-Herald that Clague’s calculations relate to “a correctly abated system, but we haven’t reached that level yet.”
Regardless of Clague’s intentions, within days he was disavowing the use of his words by the geothermal supporters. As reported in the Hawai`i Tribune-Herald, Clague “said his report … never said geothermal development would be safe in a residential area, or that there is no health or safety danger to Puna residents from geothermal drilling.” He was reported to have noted further “that the column referred only to the amount of hydrogen sulfide coming from Kilauea … and made no reference to parts per billion measurements beyond the actual eruption vents.”
Bill Cook, of HIGA, was reported by the newspaper as having “backed off his earlier statement,” telling the newspaper, “It isn’t our intent to mislead anyone… If we erred, we want to get that corrected as soon as possible… I don’t know if we got carried away but I intend to find out.”
The Federal EIS
As a result of a lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (discussed in the January and August [url=/members_archives/archives1991.php]1991[/url] editions of Environment Hawai`i), the federal Department of Energy is in the initial steps of preparing an environmental impact statement on the effects of further development of geothermal energy. When Energy Department officials conducted scoping sessions on the islands in March, representatives of state government were conspicuous by their virtual absence.
According to some sources, this is the result of a dispute between state and federal officials. State officials evidently believed the federal DOE should have allowed them to take the lead in preparing the EIS; the federal officials would have nothing to do with the idea. Thus, the state “boycott” of the federal scoping sessions.
The Federal Register of February 14, 1992, carried the DOE’s notice of intent to prepare an EIS and to conduct scoping meetings. The notice was accompanied by a description of the anticipated geothermal project, in which the DOE notes that “the state estimates that about 125 production wells and 30 injection wells may be needed” for production of 500 megawatts.
“In April 1989, the State projected that permitting and financing … would occur in 1991 and that 500 MW(e) of power could be on-line by 2005. Based on the current schedule of State and Federal environmental reviews, these projections are not likely to be met,” the DOE dryly notes.
Among the potential environmental issues identified in the DOE notice is the effect of geothermal energy development “on habitats and indigenous species… Such habitats include the Wao Kele O Puna rainforest… Numerous protected bird species and the protected hoary bat are found in the vicinity of planned development.”
The state and county of Hawai`i are defendants in a separate SCLDF lawsuit, seeking to force them to comply with Hawai`i’s Environmental Policy Act by preparing an environmental impact statement as a condition to further involvement in geothermal energy development (including the issuance of permits). On May 21, the judge hearing that case, Wendell Huddy, dismissed the state’s motion to have the suit thrown out on the ground that it should have been brought 15 years ago but now the statute of limitations has passed. Huddy’s ruling opens the door to pre-trial discovery by the plaintiffs, which include Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace Hawai`i, the Big Island Rainforest Action Group, the Blue Ocean Preservation Society, Citizens for Responsible Energy Development-Aloha `Aina, the Kapoho Community Association, the Rainforest Action Network, the Sierra Club, among other organizations.
To Save the Forests
If the federal Energy Department shows concern for Wao Kele O Puna, that puts it ahead of Hawai`i’s two U.S. senators, who have displayed indifference, if not overt hostility, to efforts to keep the forest intact. Two years ago, in fact, in June 1990, Senator Daniel K. Inouye made an impassioned, well-publicized speech on the Senate floor denouncing those who would defend the forest against the developers.1
How, then, is one to view the recent bill introduced by Inouye and his colleague, Senator Daniel K. Akaka, whose stated intent is to help preserve Hawai`i’s tropical forests?
The legislation — Senate Bill 2679 — is titled the “Hawai`i Tropical Forest Recovery Act.” Among other things, it would establish a task force of 11 members, which would be given a year to prepare a report on: ways of “rejuvenating declining or degraded tropical forest land;” “compatible uses within tropical forests, particularly agroforestry and the cultivation of scarce or valuable hardwoods…;” actions to help identify and classify unidentified plant and animal species and to “promote public awareness of tropical forest preservation, protection of threatened and endangered species, and forest management planning;” and “traditional practices, uses, and needs of native Hawaiians in tropical forests.”
The legislation is specific as to the task force’s composition. Two members are to be appointed by the secretary of Agriculture, representing the Forest Service and the Soil Conservation Service. The Secretary of Interior is to appoint two more, representing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service.
The governor of Hawai`i is to appoint all remaining members, as follows: Three are to be “private owners of tropical forest lands or experts in the field of tropical forestry; three members shall be representatives of Hawai`i environmental organizations that have demonstrated expertise in the areas of tropical forest management, habitat preservation, and alien species control; and one member shall be the chairperson of the Department of Land and Natural Resources … or the designated representative of the chairperson.”
It is not unreasonable to suppose that this means a task force made up of Bush administration loyalists; Sus Ono (the DLNR’s past chairman and its ongoing consultant on geothermal energy); representatives of The Nature Conservancy; and, of course, officers of Campbell Estate and Bishop Estate, as the two largest private landowners with holdings in tropical forests.
Regarding Bishop Estate
If Campbell Estate were represented on the task force, any conflict that may arise between preserving tropical forests and developing geothermal energy might be presumed to be resolved in favor of the latter, what with Campbell Estate owning the land on which True Geothermal has made its geothermal stake.
But Bishop Estate also has lately cast its lot with geothermal energy. As reported in the April-May 1992 edition of Hawai`i Monitor, Bishop Estate Trustee Oswald Stender “personally intervened to block students at Kamehameha Schools from making a sizable contribution to the Pele Defense Fund, one of the active opponents of geothermal development.”
The report, based on an article in the school newspaper, states that the senior class proposed last year to donate $4,457, raised during homecoming events, to the Pele Defense Fund. Stender, according to the Monitor, “told the students that Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate has land on the Big Island that is being used for geothermal development and has decided to take a pro-geothermal position.
“After an initial round of debate in December, the Student Council Executive Board decided to give half of the money to flood victims on Kaua`i` and to postpone a decision on whether to give the remaining funds to the Pele group.
“At this point Stender apparently waded further into the fray and offered to personally match the students’ funds if the remaining money were given to any other cause except the Pele group.
“The students ultimately yielded… It cost Stender $2,228, but he got his way.”
1 Credit for drafting that speech was claimed by lobbyist Vincent Versage, whose clients included the state Department of Business and Economic Development and Pirelli Cable, the Italian company poised to get the contract for the undersea cable that would carry Big Island energy to O`ahu. For more on this topic, see the January 1991 edition of Environment Hawai`i.
Volume 2, Number 12 June 1992