Geothermal energy has a lot in common with rail transit. Both are big-ticket items and, if they are built out, they hold the promise of jobs for the state’s most powerful unions and contracts for its most influential engineering and construction firms.
In another convergence, both are touted as leading the state in the direction of diminished dependence on oil.
If only they could!
Braking the Train
The myth that rail transit will result in any net savings of energy has been discredited generally since 1977, when the Congressional Budget Office published an exhaustive study on the subject. Its findings were that when energy consumed in construction of rail systems was included in its overall energy budget, rail transit showed no advantage over other transit systems. The director of the CBO at the time, Alice Rivlin, stated that of course, there were factors other than energy to be considered when cities were deciding how best to address transportation needs. Still, from the perspective of energy consumption, rail transit is a bust.
The myth that geothermal energy can in and of itself reduce Hawai`i’s oil imports by an ounce, much less a barrel, was dispelled earlier this year by Pacific Resources, Inc. Responding to claims that geothermal energy would do just this, PRI evidently felt compelled, at long last, to set the record straight. Until transportation demand diminishes, the amount of oil Hawai`i imports will continue to be determined by the transportation sector. Hawai`i continues to produce more “residual” fuel than is consumed by electrical power generation plants statewide.
Although the PRI spokesman stopped short of saying so, at the present time, if geothermal energy comes on line, it will only result in the state having to export even more residual fuel than it already does.
‘Black Oil’
That brings up the third topic considered in this issue: the transport of heavy oil from O`ahu, where it is produced in the refining process, to other islands.
The position of the shippers is that federal legislation enacted two years ago is imposing an impossible burden on their operations.
Let us state succinctly what that burden is: It is nothing more than the duty to avoid actions that are so grossly negligent, or in such willful disregard of safe practices, that they cause oil spills. The prospect of unlimited liability that has evidently left the state’s oil shippers paralyzed with fear is triggered only when spills can be shown to result from this sort of deliberately foolish action on the part of the shipper.
Rather than caving in to the shippers’ political blackmail, the Legislature should properly have been asking why the people of Hawai`i should even be allowing them to do business here — if they cannot assure the state that their standards of operation are safe enough to avoid the ultimate penalty of the federal Oil Pollution Act.
Having to pay for the consequences of one’s actions is a time-honored means of ensuring a modicum of responsible behavior, from individual parties no less than from businesses. If Chevron or PRI or Hawaiian Tug and Barge cannot operate profitably and still meet the conditions imposed by the Oil Pollution Act, perhaps other businesses might be invited to take up the slack.
Blackened Beaches
The political momentum behind passage of the federal legislation was the Exxon Valdez spill, as well as several lesser ones coming quickly on its heels. The national outrage was high enough back then, and memories of oiled shorelines still vivid enough, to overcome the oil industry’s long-standing opposition to efforts to put teeth into the laws governing oil transport. Even so, the resulting law — OPA ’90 — contained concessions to the industry.
Now, apparently, the industry is counting on memories having faded and outrage having waned. No sooner are the federal rules implementing OPA about ready to come on line than industry lobbyists are clamoring for relief at both the state and the federal levels.
It would be absolutely counter-productive to hope for another catastrophic spill to subdue industry lobbyists this time. Still, we would commend to readers the sobering exercise of pondering what would occur in the event of a worst-case scenario. The tourism industry would take weeks, if not months or years, to recover. The reefs and beaches would be fouled, with recovery of marine life requiring years. The lost income to people working in hotels or related businesses would quickly mount into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
If all this were to have been brought about by a spill resulting from gross negligence (a drunken pilot) or willful misconduct (disgruntled employee) or violations of serious federal safety regulations, the public would be justifiably indignant. If those same people were kept from recovering their losses because of the industry having won a cap on liability in these circumstances, the political fallout — against both the industry and the politicians placing the cap on damages — might be expected to be substantial.
Mob Rule
Unfortunately, here, as elsewhere, debate over the direction public policy should take in these three critical areas has been shaped as much by clever public relations agents as it has by an engaged body politic that has been given full access to the pertinent facts. The outcome has been confusion, as — especially in the case of geothermal energy development — people take a project’s popularity to be a sign of its viability.
In this situation, opponents of a project can easily be perceived to be roadblocks to its development, even if their court cases support the view that the project is being pursued in a manner that skirts the law. Proponents of geothermal energy who think that a handful of activists is all that stands between them and 25 megawatts of electrical power from the Earth’s bowels betray an appalling lack of respect for the idea that we should enjoy a government of law, not of men. It is they — and not the occasional small bands of protesters at plant gates and county buildings — who are the ones mocking democratic process and showing contempt for the law.
A Sop to Solar
The Legislature has passed a bill calling for installation of solar water heating equipment in state-subsidized houses over the next three years. Not all houses: rather, 30 percent for 1993 and 1994, rising to 40 percent in 1995. That’s a start — albeit a slow one — and maybe even not that if the governor elects to veto this. (He did so with a stronger bill last year.)
Solar energy is cheap. It is non-polluting. It is also not tied into a central power grid, which means that the state’s largest power providers are less than enthusiastic in their support for measures to encourage the use of solar energy.
The same may be said of conservation (cutting back on energy use) and the use of energy-efficient appliances and fixtures. In the northeast and northwest United States, utility companies have achieved extraordinary results from programs that foster a more judicious use of electrical power, allowing utilities to avoid having to build more generation plants and easing consumers’ bills at the same time.
Thanks to a nearly two-year-long process of integrated resource planning, a program along these lines will soon be put into effect in parts of the state. With the support of utilities and the public, there is every reason to believe it will succeed.
No Free Ride
Unless the demand for oil from the transportation sector drops, Hawai`i’s dependence on oil imports will remain strong, regardless of electrical consumption. As with power consumption, however, there are ways of reducing demand that entail no large public works projects, no increased taxes, no higher bus fares.
Bicycle commuting should be encouraged. For the price of a rail station, the city of Honolulu could build bike lanes the length and breadth of the city core.
Single-occupant cars during rush-hour times should be extremely discouraged. For the price of a driverless train, the city could hire traffic police to stand at stop lights, allowing all high-occupancy cars to pass through intersections before cars carrying only their drivers were allowed through. For the cost of a mile of elevated track, bus-only lanes could be built and patrolled in perpetuity, helping to give buses the leg up they need to attract people who believe commuting by car is faster.
These options, and more, are cheap. They are energy-efficient. They would be effective. In a town driven by contractors and unions, they don’t have a prayer.
Mahalo
Environment Hawai`i gratefully acknowledges receipt of a generous grant from the Pohaku Fund of the Tides Foundation. The grant will be used to underwrite general operating expenses.
Finally, we would like to invite readers to send us their comments in writing. Frequently the question is asked: Why does Environment Hawai`i publish so few letters? The answer is simple: We get so few. Please write.
Volume 2, Number 12 June 1992