FOLLOWING THE MONEY

FOLLOWING THE MONEY: In addition to our wholesale advocacy of a "no" vote on this FERCin' mess KIUC has gotten us into with their capitulation to Free Flow Partners' (FFP) extortion, we've been doing quite a bit of retail, taking a slew of phone calls from people for whom computers are anathema- all essentially asking "WTF?".

Many just want an answer as to whether to vote "no" or "yes." But far more have read both the newspaper articles and the ballot itself along with KIUC's unbelievably slanted voters' guide.

Under "your no vote means" the guide makes the claim that:

The contracts with FFP will be terminated, and all preliminary permits will revert back to FFP. This will make progress on hydro in the near term very difficult and more expensive, and more than $325,000 in contractual obligations will be due to FFP.

Even those that have read both our coverage and Joan Conrow's awesome Honolulu Weekly article and meticulously researched and presented Gold Diggers (parts 1 and 2) blog posts have asked an important question.

Basically they ask "well, yes- the whole deal stinks and we should never have entered into any deal with FFP. But now that we have we stand to lose $325,000 (some reports claim it's as high as $400,000) which will inevitably show up on our bill. And we will have paid that money and not be any closer to hydroelectric power project development. Shouldn't I vote 'yes?'"

The answer to the first part is that while yes, it will cost hundreds of thousands to cancel the deal with FFP, many have not heard or glossed over a quote from Conrow's Honolulu Weekly piece which says that:

Bissell said no specific price was placed on the applications, which were purchased as part of a larger consulting contract. The utility has refused to disclose the full value of the contract, which includes an incentive for delivering completed projects, but KIUC attorney David Proudfoot said FFP will be paid “several million dollars if none go past the first stage."

Given the opposition to FERC and the likelihood that, with the state's long-standing opposition and threats to sue, we will never proceed to full FERC licensing. What a yes vote means is that, although we'll have to forfeit the $325K we'd potentially be throwing away a lot more.

As Conrow concluded in her second Gold Digger post:

In its permitted applications, FFP states, “The studies will be financed by the applicant.” No mention is made of KIUC. For each project, FFP estimates the cost of doing all the first-year studies — the feasibility stuff — at $100,000. The rest of the work — consultations, developing a notice of intent and pre-application document, and beginning scoping activities — is estimated to “not exceed $500,000."

So even if FFP were to take all six projects all the way up to the license application, it would cost no more than $3.6 million. KIUC won’t tell us exactly what we’re paying, but KIUC attorney David Proudfoot told us at the June 4 community meeting that FFP will be paid “several million dollars if none go past the first stage.”

Several is defined as “more than or three but not many.” So it sounds like we’re paying close to, if not more than, the full estimated price for bringing all six projects through the first stage, even though KIUC CEO David Bissell and some Board members have acknowledged that some of the projects will never get off the ground.

On top of that, FFP will get an incentive for delivering completed projects.

The second question is a bit trickier but perhaps more revealing.

The reason why KIUC says it is going through the FERC is that there is no state process for developing hydro. But we must remember a couple of things.

What many including petition initiator Adam Asquith have said, is that what we should have done- and should do- is to go to the state and say "we want to do hydroelectric projects and want to work with the state to establish a system for development and introduce and pass enabling legislation and eventually administrative rules so that we can develop environmentally and culturally sensitive and water-wise projects into the future.

And, as a matter of fact, a good place to start is the KIUC ballyhooed flow chart that FERC has already developed for public participation and alter it for our unique water laws.

Certainly we're not the only ones in the state who want to develop hydropower. HELCO has the same renewable energy portfolio requirements as KIUC for the other islands. If and when they wake up to the insanity of their "Big Wind" project and the fact that it is doomed to failure, hydroelectric is probably the next best technology in terms of cost of both development and future rates.

But whether through pure laziness, corruption or pure stupidity the KIUC board of directors and administrative staff seems hell bent on committing us to a costly and widely-opposed way of going about it- one that, even if it were to succeed, would still leave us without a simpler, less costly statewide system for the next round of hydroelectric development.

The $325-400,000 we stand to lose in a "no" vote is peanuts compared to the cost of a "yes" vote down the road. Whether as a way to say no to FERC or to, in fact, SAVE us money, a "no" vote is the best option to get us out of this mess that the board of KIUC has gotten us into.

That and remembering this fiasco during the next KIUC board of directors election.

WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT

WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT: Oh there was fear. Oh there was loathing.

But the when KIUC CEO David Bissell "debated" anti-FERC petition originator Adam Asquith at a packed Kapa`a Library conference room on Saturday there was mostly misdirection and stonewalling on Bissell's part- especially when we asked about the origins of KIUC's dealing with Free Flow Partners (FFP).

We decided to confront Bissell as to how exactly the deal came about, quoting a Honolulu Weekly article by Joan Conrow that made pretty clear that FFP had gotten the preliminary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) permits, set up shell corporations and then held a gun to KIUC's head forcing them to either deal with FFP to get dibs on the exclusive right to develop six water runs on Kaua`i for hydroelectric or FFP would tie up the rights indefinitely.

Bissell at first denied that the permits were issued before KIUC's initial involvement (which Bissell said was last October) something documentation reveals to be a lie. But then, when we were allowed a followup question, he refused to say who exactly approached whom and how the deal was struck other than saying an unidentified intermediary brought the parties together, saying "what difference does it make?".

We approached Bissell after the meeting seeking to get some answers to that matter as well as a couple of others. But Bissell as soon as we approached him as he spoke to others, quickly scurried to his car, saying he would not answer any more questions and leaving us, note pad in hand, chasing him through the library parking lot.

So what is the truth? Well, according to Conrow's blog post today, the truth is that "FFP had already done the “poaching” by filing its applications for hydro projects on Kauai waterways prior to entering into a contract with KIUC."

Not only does she clarify and reiterate what we suspected she was saying on Friday but she details how "it appears the circumstances that led to their union were more akin to a shotgun wedding than a love match. What’s more, it seems that “grab 'em with both hands” is FFP’s standard MO."

Seems that, although FFP hasn't developed a single project as opponents have reiterated, they have scooped up hundreds of these "preliminary permits" across the country including "141 project sites covering all but a few miles of (an) 850-mile reach of the (Mississippi) river" causing FREC "to decline to issue additional permits on this stretch of river, and instead allow potential developers to advance their projects through the commission's licensing process."

Another part of their scam seems to be to find existing dams without any hydro projects and get permits for exploring exclusive development.

While we suggest you read Conrow's post today for all the gory details of that and other FFP mainland scams, what remains is yet another reason to distrust Bissell himself and everything that comes out of his mouth.

The other questions we didn't get answered included one as to why the "members" of the co-op aren't entitled to examine full Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between KIUC and FFP which, as far as we have been able to determine by asking board members, is "confidential" for no particular reason other than it's confidential.

One thing that Bissell refused to say was whether KIUC would commit to abandon the seeking of full FERC licensing, in light of the contention of late that KIUC/FFP has only obtained "preliminary permits" to look into hydroelectric projects on Kaua`i and not full "FERC licensing"- the latter of which is opposed by the state DLNR's water division chief and attorney general's office.

It's particularity irksome that Bissell has claimed that, because there is no state process for hydro development, we need to follow the "FERC process" contained in a flow chart that was waved about at the dais. But he avoided commenting on why that process couldn’t be followed without FERC.

Could it be that the reason why KIUC never approached the state to set up a state-based process for developing hydro was because FFP had already gotten the preliminary permits and was holding a gun to KIUC's head saying that they would hold up any hydro development indefinitely unless KIUC signed on the dotted line?

That would sure explain a lot of things such as why all of a sudden without any advance notice KIUC was suddenly gung ho for hydroelectric development. It would also explain why they signed an MOA that "purchases" the permits and shell corporations but allows both to revert to FFP should KIUC change its mind, as will happen should the ballots be returned with more "no" than "yes" votes.

We had prepared a question for Bissell on the off-chance that we would get a second round at the meeting along the lines of "given that almost everyone- including some board members- agrees that your communications with the public have so far been severely bungled with a lack of transparency, the 'no FERC, no hydro' threat and the refusal to release the MOA, is there anything you'd personally do differently if you had it to do over?".

But after the a couple of hours of misinformation, threats, misdirection and, when necessary, stonewalling in reiterating all the past bunk we've been fed, the question seemed to have answered itself.