garyhooser ([info]garyhooser) wrote,

A Most Interesting And Inspiring Day

This past Thursday was a most interesting, inspiring and very important day.

Because of the Environmental Councils role in being a community and government liaison on environmental matters, I had earlier written them a letter requesting a declaratory ruling or opinion on the matter of the Hawaii Superferry EIS exemption.

The public meeting held on Thursday was in response to that request.

At that meeting the State of Hawaii’s Environment Council voted overwhelmingly in support of a motion that essentially stated that the Department of Transportation, Harbors Division, made a mistake when they exempted the Hawaii Superferry from our States environmental impact statement (EIS) laws.

Taken within the context of this organizations roles and responsibilities with regards to oversight of our state’s environmental regulation – this decision and statement is significant.

Who is “The Environmental Council” and what is their role and responsibility you might wonder?

As described on their website: http://hawaii.gov/health/oeqc/envcouncil.html

“The Environmental Council is a fifteen member citizen board appointed by the Governor and affiliated with the Office of Environmental Quality Control. It is the Office's link to the community at large. The Council is responsible for making the EIS rules, reviewing agency lists of actions exempt from the environmental review process, monitoring agency progress in meeting environmental goals, and preparing an annual report with recommendations for improvement to the Governor and Legislature.”

I think this point deserves repeating:

The Environmental Council’s members are appointed by the Governor and their official responsibilities state:

“The Council is responsible for making the EIS rules, reviewing agency lists of actions exempt from the environmental review process, monitoring agency progress in meeting environmental goals…”

And this very same organization has just reaffirmed officially and in writing what many people in our State have been saying repeatedly over and over during the past two years or more – that the State of Hawaii DOT did not follow the rules when granting the Hawaii Superferry an EIS exemption.

SB1276SD1 which hopefully will soon be scheduled in the Senate Committee on Ways and Means – essentially directs the DOT to reverse its prior decision and follow the law.

In the end that is what this debate boils down to – following the law that is already in place.

The members of the Environmental Council deserve our utmost respect and appreciation.

At the hearing (which I attended) the Hawaii Superferry attorneys leaned on the members hard - telling them they had no authority in the matter, that they should not interfere in the issue and that at the minimum they should delay their decision making.

The Councils own state appointed attorney offered similar suggestions – cautioning the members that they had no authority and urged them to delay the decision.

The Council members to their credit said NO – it was without a doubt, clear and obvious to each of them that the action taken by the DOT in granting the EIS exemption was blatantly and dramatically out of sync with the intent of the law.

The discussion and the ultimate decision was clearly unscripted and audience members could hear and feel the emotion and passion in the voices of members who spoke.

“If we do not have the authority to state our opinion on a matter as clear and as significant as this, why are we even here?” asked one member in response to the state attorneys position.

Kudos’ to all members of the council for having the courage to do what is right. 7 members of the 11-member commission are up for reappointment this year and it will be interesting to see what price they might pay for their courageous and thoughtful action.

You may email your thoughts on the matter to the Environmental Council members at OEQC@doh.hawaii.gov

If interested in reading another blogs take on the issue visit http://www.poinography.com/ or read the Honolulu Advertiser article at http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Feb/23/ln/FP702230373.html or the Garden Island at http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2007/02/24/opinion/edit03.txt
Tags: environment, hawaii, hooser, superferrry

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Your reply will be screened

  • 10 comments

Anonymous

February 25 2007, 01:46:35 UTC 5 years ago

EIS 4 ethanol coal buring plant

Dear Gary,
I saw you last night at Foodland and you looked a little flushed. I hope you are feeling well.
Anyway, I was checking out your blog and noticed back in January you said that Apollo Kauai is a very credible organization. Sorry, but I'm not buying it - they are just a lobbying group for the ethanol industry.
Tell me, does Kauai Ethanol(Gay & Robinson) have to file a EIS for their high-sulfur coal burning plant?
Also, why should taxpayers pay for their ethanol plant?
Also, why do we have to have 10% ethanol in our gas anyway? We have no smog problems, yet.
The technology to make ethanol from cellulose does not exist. I guess they plan to burn molasses. What do they do with it now?
If G & R grew corn, they could make ethanol way cheaper.
John Wyatt

[info]garyhooser

February 25 2007, 01:57:53 UTC 5 years ago

Re: EIS 4 ethanol coal buring plant

Hello John,

Thanks for your comments. Yesterday was a long day at the end of a long week...but I am feeling fine...mahalo for your concern.

I understand you might not agree with my assessment of Apollo Kauai, but I still think they are a credible organization trying to do the right thing. Am not sure about the EIS requirement for Gay and Robinson...the 10% ethanol requirement is to help support a "local grown" alternative to imported oil. It is my understanding the sugar cane is a much more efficient source of ethanol. Disclaimer: I am not expert but do my best to evaluate and deal with the issues as they are presented.

Anonymous

February 25 2007, 03:54:04 UTC 5 years ago

Re: EIS 4 ethanol coal buring plant

Sen. Hooser: According to this Honolulu Advertiser story from Oct. 2006 (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Oct/08/ln/FP610080363.html), the problem with using sugar cane as a source of ethanol is the tremendous amount of water required for irrigation. Maybe on the Garden Island this would not pose much of a problem right now, but on Maui, for instance, sugar cane fields are being developed for housing and commercial use and the water rights are being sold to the highest bidder. For the sugar companies to try to get back what is no longer theirs might be too big of an obstacle to overcome.

HECO and BlueEarth LLC are proposing to build a $61 million biofuel plant on Maui (http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=27836). The fuel source will be imported palm oil, of which there will be a glut soon because of the food industry's turning away from including transfats in their products. HECO plans to use some of the biofuel produced to help wean MECO off diesel and eventually the plant should be able to supply the other power plants in Hawai'i with biofuel as well.

What's a little worrisome to me about the move to alternative plant sources for producing fuel is the possibility somewhere down the road of there being a conflict with the need for supplying food for people (i.e., corn and sugar especially v. fueling cars. If there should be a drought in the midwest where corn is raised, would there have to be a choice between feeding people and fueling machinery?

Weaning people off petroleum is going to take a combination of alternatives, working in combination. Hawai'i is blessed with abundant solar, wind and geothermal energy. Why not harness more of that energy as well? And forget the NIMBYs who object to having a windmill in their back yards. When they don't have any electricity to light their houses, maybe they'll finally figure out that sometimes they can't have their cake and eat it too.

P.S. Mahalos for all that you and most of the Neighbor Island senators and representatives in the Legislature are doing to prove that the Neighbor Island folks also have a stake in the future of the 'aina!

[info]garyhooser

February 25 2007, 04:04:22 UTC 5 years ago

Re: EIS 4 ethanol coal buring plant

Once again...mahalo for your comments. Hope you are submitting testimony at the leg when these issues and related items are heard in committee. gh

Anonymous

February 27 2007, 08:24:28 UTC 5 years ago

Re: EIS 4 ethanol coal buring plant

Gary,
Please read the Feb. 12 issue of Forbes Magazine. Should be easy to find.
Mahalo,

Anonymous

February 27 2007, 20:16:34 UTC 5 years ago

Re: EIS 4 ethanol coal buring plant

1) Palm oil is not a trans fat. It's high in saturated fats and not considered heart healthy, but transfats come from a chemical (hydrogenation) process working on natural oils.

2) Ethanol from cane has higher yields per acre. Water is always an issue and I can't comment there.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

note that in Brazil, ethanol facilities are stand alone. Bagasse provides all their power requirements (no coal!) and they still export electricity (like ours used to do). So why is G&R playing games here with coal -- they are not to be trusted?

Anonymous

February 27 2007, 20:24:46 UTC 5 years ago

Re: EIS 4 ethanol coal buring plant

think you are wrong John. Brazil makes ethanol much cheaper via sugar cane than any other supplier. It's not like they can't grow corn down there. Some crops work better in one area/climate than another, but sugar cane gives more sugar per acre than corn. One source:

"Ethanol yield (gallons/acre) for sugar cane under good tropical conditions is double that for corn. For all those reasons, sugar cane ethanol is seven times more energy efficient; its net energy, expressed as ERoEI, is 9:1 while corn ethanol has an ERoEI of only 1.3:1."

from http://www.energybulletin.net/21064.html

we just can't grow sugar cane in the main farming areas of the US where the politically powerful corn lobby demands their subsidies.


Anonymous

March 1 2007, 03:52:18 UTC 5 years ago

Re: EIS 4 ethanol coal buring plant

Brazil's government has subsidized their sugar cane ethanol production for over 10 years. Without the subsidy, forget it. It takes 3 gallons of ethanol to equal the same energy in 2 gallons of gasoline. G & R will not use sugar to make ethanol anyway. The price of sugar has skyrocketed since all of this ethanol hype started.
They hope to use waste products: bagasse and molasses. Of course, the technology doesn't exist yet, so its just more hype.
jw

Anonymous

March 2 2007, 09:27:44 UTC 5 years ago

Re: EIS 4 ethanol coal buring plant

I share your disgust with G&R. All I'm saying is switching from sugar cane to corn is no panacea. I'd rather the effort go to wind energy as it gives us energy at a cost lower than our current price. Forget ethanol in Hawaii unless it can pull it's own weight without subsidies. Put the subsidy money into electric or hybrid cars instead. Much more bang for the buck.

Anonymous

March 26 2007, 07:11:52 UTC 5 years ago

Oil and now this?

So instead of shipping in crude oil to make gas, now we are also dependent upon ethanol to be shipped in, too. Brilliant. We will never grow enough cane here to make as much as we need for the simple reason it can be done cheaper somewhere else...currently South America. We bring in about two ships a month full of ethanol. So now we residents of Hawaii are committed to being totally dependent on two consumable items we don't have and the market forces (elsewhere) that control their prices.

Only politicians in Hawaii (an Island State) could have dreamt this one up.

Way to go. Keep up the great work.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…