THE LUNATIC IS IN MY HEAD: Ever since Thursday we've had a nagging feeling we were missing something after reading the article in the local newspaper about Tuesday's Kaua‘i Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC) board meeting where it was announced that they were going to essentially ignore the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) ruling dismissing of two of KIUC's eight preliminary hydropower permits and throwing the rest into question.
So on Thursday, when we couldn't quite put our finger on it, we decided to rehash the story of the apparently sleazy way KIUC's deal with Free Flow Power (FFP) went down.
But last night it all became clear after we read a Facebook posting by board member Ben Sullivan.
Sullivan for some reason has taken it upon himself to be the spokesperson for the board's insistence that they are not going to abandon the FERC permits or process in favor of what the FERC called the state's "long history of authorizing and regulating hydropower projects."
Last night, in a seemingly tone-deaf statement accompanying a notice for this week's three meetings regarding KIUC's remaining FERC hydroelectric projects, he wrote "I think our approach is a good one, we just have to make sure there is ample communication and that we work together during the evaluation."
"What approach?" we thought. "What communication? The insistence that the FERC process is the right one no matter what anyone says?"
All of a sudden it hit us. Part of the FERC ruling said essentially that they would no longer issue any more permits for the state of Hawai`i. And that makes KIUC's whole stated reason for using FERC in the first place no longer valid.
KIUC has repeatedly said that they had to use FERC because they were afraid someone else would take out preliminary permits and by doing so, under FERC rules, obtain sole rights to develop those projects. That, they said, would have put KIUC over a barrel of having to negotiate with whomever got the permit and buy the power- possibly at an inflated price- denying the coop actual ownership of the facilities.
But now that no one can get one of those preliminary (or final for that matter) permits, nobody can do that anymore so there's no reason that KIUC even needs a FERC permit anymore.
It's that simple.
But there was also one more claim made by Sullivan that flies in the face of KIUC's previous statements regarding the state regulatory process.
It has been a matter of some ambiguity as to whether there is or is not a state "process for approval" of hydropower in Hawai`i. But according to the FERC ruling “Hawai‘i has a long history of authorizing and regulating hydropower projects at the state level,” and has approved 13 projects throughout the state citing a recent one in Wailuku, Maui.
The whole problem with the FERC process, according to Don Heacock and Adam Asqueth- the two aquatic biologists who have been challenging the use of FERC's federal oversight- is that, due to a US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling, the feds apparently have the power to usurp the state's excellent water use laws which protect whole watersheds and ecosystems, regulating stream flow, water distribution and use as well as other essential matters.
KIUC has maintained over and over that they will follow all state regulation and standards in using the FERC process for public participation and decision making, even pointing to a different SCOTUS ruling that they claim may rule out the usurping of state law.
But seemingly contradicting this is another statement made by Sullivan in Thursday’s article.
Sullivan said there are certain advantages to using FERC for permitting.
“One of the them is the cumbersome nature of the state process —and perhaps even the non-existence of a state process — and that’s an important issue we’ve discussed,” he said. “There’s high cost involved in a process that has no timeline for ending, and it’s difficult to know whether it’s in the members’ interest to even engage in such a process. The FERC avenue offers an alternate to that, potentially. It also lays out a process that we can limit, as you have suggested, and I think that it’s something that the staff is constantly working with the state to do.”
So in other words KIUC does NOT necessarily intend to honor all of the state's water laws as they pledged when state water authorities came out against the use of the FERC permitting.
There is apparently some honest- to-god, double-talking bullcrap going on with KIUC (what else is new). If you care, show up for one or all of this week's meetings and tell them to stop the prevarications and misrepresentations, abandon the FERC process and follow the state law... as they pledged they would.
The meetings are scheduled for Tuesday at Waimea Theater, Wednesday at Hanalei School cafeteria and Thursday at Kapa‘a Middle School cafeteria all from 6 to 7:30 p.m.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
WATCHING THE RIVER FLOW
WATCHING THE RIVER FLOW: Our old J-school prof's blue pencil used to wear thin on students' submissions in writing "sez who?" in the margins when their articles contained fully unattributed "facts." It's become one of our pet peeves too- at least add a "reportedly" or the all-inclusive "according to critics."
So it should be too much of a surprise that steam came shooting out of our ears once again this morning when another "according to who?" bit of bull-dinky appeared in a local newspaper article about KIUC's reaction to the FERC decision to "dismiss" two of their preliminary permits and ban future ones in the islands.
In the second paragraph of an article penned by Business Editor Vanessa Van Voorhis, apropos of nothing she writes:
Free Flow Power (FFP) of Massachusetts filed preliminary permit applications with the federal agency earlier this year for projects located on Koke‘e and Kekaha Ditch Irrigation systems. The permits, once issued, were to be turned over to KIUC, under a paid contract agreement with the co-op for an undisclosed amount (emphasis added).
Of course our readers know that that timeline is straight from the Kaua`i Island Utilities Coop's party line and has never been substantiated. As a matter of fact it appears that KIUC was presented with a "deal they couldn't refuse" after FFP obtained preliminary permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
No one really knows for sure whether in fact KIUC actually approached FFP or the other way around because the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)- the contract between FFP and KIUC- has been declared "proprietary information" by the supposedly member owned and run co-op.
But, as we wrote last July 6 just before the "vote" to invalidate the MOA was closed:
According to documents uncovered by reporter Joan Conrow and information that has been dragged out of KIUC CEO David Bissell and their attorney David Proudfoot, the MOAs came about after FFP filed for six- and already received at least three- FERC preliminary permits that allow the holder to exclusively investigate the possibility of constructing hydroelectric systems for the named areas, potentially leading to FERC licensing of the projects.
But those permits are non-transferable so FFP set up shell corporation to file for the permits and after they were granted they "sold" the shell corporations to KIUC under those MOAs.
There's a reason why we put sold in quotes. Because, according to the information repeated over and over by Bissell and Proudfoot, should the members vote no, the MOAs say that the permits would have to be turned over to FFP- AND we would have to pay them $325,000 to take them back to boot.
We also noted that:
People might be interested to know that the person who approached KIUC for FFP to set up the "offer they couldn't refuse" is said to be investment banker Bill Collett, the same person who set up the whole purchase of Kaua`i Electric from Citizen's Electric for an exorbitant amount of money that was still way more than the book value even after it was decreased by $50 million by the PUC.
But the local newspaper hasn't exactly been in the forefront of investigating the claims of its biggest advertiser, KIUC.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
And it seems they're not about to start now.
The article also again raises the question of whether there is indeed a Hawai`i state process for permitting hydroelectric systems. As we first reported last week, in the FERC's dismissal of two of the permits they cited an established state process, one that had been used in developing 13 other hydroelectric projects in the state.
But while, according to the article, KIUC board member Ben Sullivan still questions whether there is an actual state process State Aquatic Biologist Don Heacock explained to us last week that the state process is the same one used for any other stream diversions.
He told us that, as he and Adam Asqueth- who led the effort to get KIUC to abandon federal oversight- said over and over during the membership vote in July, any hydropower effort must use the state standards for water flow and deal with them in light of the effects on the whole watershed and include effects on water use and diversion on the watershed as a whole.
According to the article Sullivan cited problems with the state process in the same breath as questioning whether there is one. But KIUC CEO David Bissell and Sullivan himself had claimed during the voting process that using FERC would never usurp any state regulations.
The article quotes Sullivan as saying:
“One of the (the problems) is the cumbersome nature of the state process —and perhaps even the non-existence of a state process — and that’s an important issue we’ve discussed... There’s high cost involved in a process that has no timeline for ending, and it’s difficult to know whether it’s in the members’ interest to even engage in such a process. The FERC avenue offers an alternate to that, potentially. It also lays out a process that we can limit, as you have suggested, and I think that it’s something that the staff is constantly working with the state to do.”
So which is it? Are they going to follow the state process or claim there isn't one and do a little as they can get away with?
The article also quotes Sullivan as saying "I do believe that we made some mistakes in the early going, but I do believe we’re doing our best in the interest of the community and continue on with an open mind and open options is the way to go,"
If that's at all true it's about time for him and the board to come clean about all the alleged FFP/FERC shenanigans, release the MOA, abandon the other permits and follow the state processes, as they promised during the vote.
So it should be too much of a surprise that steam came shooting out of our ears once again this morning when another "according to who?" bit of bull-dinky appeared in a local newspaper article about KIUC's reaction to the FERC decision to "dismiss" two of their preliminary permits and ban future ones in the islands.
In the second paragraph of an article penned by Business Editor Vanessa Van Voorhis, apropos of nothing she writes:
Free Flow Power (FFP) of Massachusetts filed preliminary permit applications with the federal agency earlier this year for projects located on Koke‘e and Kekaha Ditch Irrigation systems. The permits, once issued, were to be turned over to KIUC, under a paid contract agreement with the co-op for an undisclosed amount (emphasis added).
Of course our readers know that that timeline is straight from the Kaua`i Island Utilities Coop's party line and has never been substantiated. As a matter of fact it appears that KIUC was presented with a "deal they couldn't refuse" after FFP obtained preliminary permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
No one really knows for sure whether in fact KIUC actually approached FFP or the other way around because the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)- the contract between FFP and KIUC- has been declared "proprietary information" by the supposedly member owned and run co-op.
But, as we wrote last July 6 just before the "vote" to invalidate the MOA was closed:
According to documents uncovered by reporter Joan Conrow and information that has been dragged out of KIUC CEO David Bissell and their attorney David Proudfoot, the MOAs came about after FFP filed for six- and already received at least three- FERC preliminary permits that allow the holder to exclusively investigate the possibility of constructing hydroelectric systems for the named areas, potentially leading to FERC licensing of the projects.
But those permits are non-transferable so FFP set up shell corporation to file for the permits and after they were granted they "sold" the shell corporations to KIUC under those MOAs.
There's a reason why we put sold in quotes. Because, according to the information repeated over and over by Bissell and Proudfoot, should the members vote no, the MOAs say that the permits would have to be turned over to FFP- AND we would have to pay them $325,000 to take them back to boot.
We also noted that:
People might be interested to know that the person who approached KIUC for FFP to set up the "offer they couldn't refuse" is said to be investment banker Bill Collett, the same person who set up the whole purchase of Kaua`i Electric from Citizen's Electric for an exorbitant amount of money that was still way more than the book value even after it was decreased by $50 million by the PUC.
But the local newspaper hasn't exactly been in the forefront of investigating the claims of its biggest advertiser, KIUC.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
And it seems they're not about to start now.
The article also again raises the question of whether there is indeed a Hawai`i state process for permitting hydroelectric systems. As we first reported last week, in the FERC's dismissal of two of the permits they cited an established state process, one that had been used in developing 13 other hydroelectric projects in the state.
But while, according to the article, KIUC board member Ben Sullivan still questions whether there is an actual state process State Aquatic Biologist Don Heacock explained to us last week that the state process is the same one used for any other stream diversions.
He told us that, as he and Adam Asqueth- who led the effort to get KIUC to abandon federal oversight- said over and over during the membership vote in July, any hydropower effort must use the state standards for water flow and deal with them in light of the effects on the whole watershed and include effects on water use and diversion on the watershed as a whole.
According to the article Sullivan cited problems with the state process in the same breath as questioning whether there is one. But KIUC CEO David Bissell and Sullivan himself had claimed during the voting process that using FERC would never usurp any state regulations.
The article quotes Sullivan as saying:
“One of the (the problems) is the cumbersome nature of the state process —and perhaps even the non-existence of a state process — and that’s an important issue we’ve discussed... There’s high cost involved in a process that has no timeline for ending, and it’s difficult to know whether it’s in the members’ interest to even engage in such a process. The FERC avenue offers an alternate to that, potentially. It also lays out a process that we can limit, as you have suggested, and I think that it’s something that the staff is constantly working with the state to do.”
So which is it? Are they going to follow the state process or claim there isn't one and do a little as they can get away with?
The article also quotes Sullivan as saying "I do believe that we made some mistakes in the early going, but I do believe we’re doing our best in the interest of the community and continue on with an open mind and open options is the way to go,"
If that's at all true it's about time for him and the board to come clean about all the alleged FFP/FERC shenanigans, release the MOA, abandon the other permits and follow the state processes, as they promised during the vote.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
MEET THE NEW BOSS
MEET THE NEW BOSS: The Charter Commission continues its work without much public oversight except when they bring their work before the county council to ask permission to do it- a very strange obsession since the council can put charter amendments on the ballot all on their lonesome.
But it hasn't escaped our attention that Mayor Bernard Carvalho has been on a crusade to use the commission to consolidate power in the mayor's office.
Using his crony Boards and Commissions chief John Isobe as a cudgel, he has sought amendments to the charter that would take away the appointing power of the few boards and commissions that appoint their respective department directors, such as the Police, Fire, Planning and Civil Service Commissions.
But we've gotta ask why he bothers because he and his predecessors been able to evade the law so successfully for decades.
Case in point? Yesterday's thus far unreported Planning Commission (PC) vote to remove the term "Interim" from the title of now permanent Planning Director (PD) Michael Dahilig.
As many may remember when former PD Ian Costa went up in flames amidst an FBI investigation, Dahilig was whisked from the county attorney's office and dispatched to the top planning spot by Carvalho amidst much hoopla over the usurping of the commission's prerogative to appoint their own director.
Of course the same thing had happened when Costa himself was installed over a decade ago when former Mayor Maryanne Kusaka installed then acting County Engineer Costa with only a pro-forma vote by the commission.
This time however many thought the opportunity to initiate a search for a real live professional with experience might be in store, maybe even one that would be a good fit for the island's controlled growth paradigm, as demanded by voters, who approved the charter amendment to put some teeth into the general plan growth numbers in 2008.
But a search of the last six months of PC agendas shows only regular executive sessions to evaluate Dahilig and nothing whatsoever dealing with any search.
So it shouldn’t have been any surprise when this week's PC meeting agenda came out and the first item of business was the "(a)ppointment of the Planning Director pursuant to Section 14.04 of the Charter of the County of Kaua'i."
And since there had been no search, no one could be surprised when Carvalho's hand picked PD Dahilig was permanently installed in the planning department’s top job.
Well, there has never, in our memory, been a planning director actually appointed by the PC without having been hand selected by the mayor, so why start now?
But it hasn't escaped our attention that Mayor Bernard Carvalho has been on a crusade to use the commission to consolidate power in the mayor's office.
Using his crony Boards and Commissions chief John Isobe as a cudgel, he has sought amendments to the charter that would take away the appointing power of the few boards and commissions that appoint their respective department directors, such as the Police, Fire, Planning and Civil Service Commissions.
But we've gotta ask why he bothers because he and his predecessors been able to evade the law so successfully for decades.
Case in point? Yesterday's thus far unreported Planning Commission (PC) vote to remove the term "Interim" from the title of now permanent Planning Director (PD) Michael Dahilig.
As many may remember when former PD Ian Costa went up in flames amidst an FBI investigation, Dahilig was whisked from the county attorney's office and dispatched to the top planning spot by Carvalho amidst much hoopla over the usurping of the commission's prerogative to appoint their own director.
Of course the same thing had happened when Costa himself was installed over a decade ago when former Mayor Maryanne Kusaka installed then acting County Engineer Costa with only a pro-forma vote by the commission.
This time however many thought the opportunity to initiate a search for a real live professional with experience might be in store, maybe even one that would be a good fit for the island's controlled growth paradigm, as demanded by voters, who approved the charter amendment to put some teeth into the general plan growth numbers in 2008.
But a search of the last six months of PC agendas shows only regular executive sessions to evaluate Dahilig and nothing whatsoever dealing with any search.
So it shouldn’t have been any surprise when this week's PC meeting agenda came out and the first item of business was the "(a)ppointment of the Planning Director pursuant to Section 14.04 of the Charter of the County of Kaua'i."
And since there had been no search, no one could be surprised when Carvalho's hand picked PD Dahilig was permanently installed in the planning department’s top job.
Well, there has never, in our memory, been a planning director actually appointed by the PC without having been hand selected by the mayor, so why start now?
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
ALL AROUND THE MULBERRY BUSH
ALL AROUND THE MULBERRY BUSH: Sometime you've gotta wonder what's up when it comes to our state judiciary.
No, we're not talking about the scandal plagued sheriff’s division or the "we be's" who populate the offices and act as if they own the process, if not the judges themselves. No, it's not the probation department that thinks that "field work" is going hunting and fishing on weekends.
If you want to know what plaguing our state's courts just look at the actual rulings of some of the men and women wearing the robes.
Today's decision by the newly reinvigorated Hawai`i Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) overturning 5th Circuit Court Judge Randall Valenciano's ruling that allowed the Republican party to "replace" a candidate for the 14th House District who intentionally filed and withdrew just before the deadline, is a case in point detailing how politics often rules the courthouse roost.
The problem is that rather than sort out what the law really is trying to say, they simply shirked that responsibility and disqualified the original candidate for not completing his application.
As Mina Morita- the one who then held the 14th district seat at the time and eventually won reelection- said at the time:
Simply put, Hamman did not file nomination papers for the District 14 House race by the close of the filing deadline because he withdrew on July 19. And, there was no way he could because he filed his nomination papers for the Senate race and a person cannot run in more than one race. The Republicans did not have a candidate qualified for the ballot for the District 14 House race at the close of the filing deadline, therefore, no candidate vacancy exists to allow Harry R. Williams to run as a legitimate candidate.
We went a little further in explaining the way the law leaves room for interpretation, citing Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) 11-117 and 118 as well as Hawai`i Administrative Rule (HAR) Chapter 3-173-1 to explain the mess and in addition mentioned that it wasn't the first time the ambiguity in the law had caused a musical chairs brouhaha at the filing deadline. Two years previously, in the case of Kirk Caldwell, the same lack of clarity squeezed him out of candidacy in any election as the "resign to run" law did its dirty work.
We won't bore you by repeating the technical explanation here again, but we will say that in between the Caldwell and Morita fiascoes, the legislature sat around with their thumbs up their butts, kow-towing to the churches, who had their noses in proximate climes over civil unions.
And as if to reiterate that inaction isn't just a mistake at the Capitol but is a carefully planned result of the Hawai`i legislative committee system, remedial bills weren't even scheduled for a hearing during the session following the Morita-Hamman mess.
Now we haven't seen the decision yet, but if the press reports are correct, the ICA didn't bother to tell the legislature to get its act together and clarify the law - as the appellate courts are wont to do on occasion- so we don't have to go through this again in 2012. Instead they decided the case based on a lack of sufficiency in the application itself, virtually saying "we won't touch this political football" even to say the law is unclear on process thus leaving the matter flapping in the wind.
So when the legislature fails to act again this January and the filing deadline comes around next year, expect yet another debacle consisting of candidates waving competing sections of law at each other and the chief elections officer. And don't worry- we'll be here with the distinctly unsatisfying chance to once again say "we told you so."
No, we're not talking about the scandal plagued sheriff’s division or the "we be's" who populate the offices and act as if they own the process, if not the judges themselves. No, it's not the probation department that thinks that "field work" is going hunting and fishing on weekends.
If you want to know what plaguing our state's courts just look at the actual rulings of some of the men and women wearing the robes.
Today's decision by the newly reinvigorated Hawai`i Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) overturning 5th Circuit Court Judge Randall Valenciano's ruling that allowed the Republican party to "replace" a candidate for the 14th House District who intentionally filed and withdrew just before the deadline, is a case in point detailing how politics often rules the courthouse roost.
The problem is that rather than sort out what the law really is trying to say, they simply shirked that responsibility and disqualified the original candidate for not completing his application.
As Mina Morita- the one who then held the 14th district seat at the time and eventually won reelection- said at the time:
Simply put, Hamman did not file nomination papers for the District 14 House race by the close of the filing deadline because he withdrew on July 19. And, there was no way he could because he filed his nomination papers for the Senate race and a person cannot run in more than one race. The Republicans did not have a candidate qualified for the ballot for the District 14 House race at the close of the filing deadline, therefore, no candidate vacancy exists to allow Harry R. Williams to run as a legitimate candidate.
We went a little further in explaining the way the law leaves room for interpretation, citing Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) 11-117 and 118 as well as Hawai`i Administrative Rule (HAR) Chapter 3-173-1 to explain the mess and in addition mentioned that it wasn't the first time the ambiguity in the law had caused a musical chairs brouhaha at the filing deadline. Two years previously, in the case of Kirk Caldwell, the same lack of clarity squeezed him out of candidacy in any election as the "resign to run" law did its dirty work.
We won't bore you by repeating the technical explanation here again, but we will say that in between the Caldwell and Morita fiascoes, the legislature sat around with their thumbs up their butts, kow-towing to the churches, who had their noses in proximate climes over civil unions.
And as if to reiterate that inaction isn't just a mistake at the Capitol but is a carefully planned result of the Hawai`i legislative committee system, remedial bills weren't even scheduled for a hearing during the session following the Morita-Hamman mess.
Now we haven't seen the decision yet, but if the press reports are correct, the ICA didn't bother to tell the legislature to get its act together and clarify the law - as the appellate courts are wont to do on occasion- so we don't have to go through this again in 2012. Instead they decided the case based on a lack of sufficiency in the application itself, virtually saying "we won't touch this political football" even to say the law is unclear on process thus leaving the matter flapping in the wind.
So when the legislature fails to act again this January and the filing deadline comes around next year, expect yet another debacle consisting of candidates waving competing sections of law at each other and the chief elections officer. And don't worry- we'll be here with the distinctly unsatisfying chance to once again say "we told you so."
Monday, October 24, 2011
IN THE BEGINNING...
IN THE BEGINNING...: At least new Council Chair Jay Furfaro is trying. Problem is that he's extremely trying.
Since he took over after the de-throning of long time Minotaur and champion of opaque governance, Kaipo Asing, Furfaro has managed to continue the policies that make sure that any potentially relevant or revelatory testimony from the public is squelched. His favorite ploy is what we've come to call the "Jeopardy! Exclusion" where he cuts off discussion between members of the public and other councilpersons just when it begins to cut to the chase because the councilperson didn't put their comment in the form of a question.
But whereas Asing was sharply cunning and devious, Furfaro seems to get more and more befuddled every week by his own attempts at control and command.
As our readers know, emerging under the guise of new council rules were two measures designed to reduce that pesky "public participation in the governing process" which, in Furfaro's mind, is apparently a dastardly plan to delay lunch.
The first rule change was filed under "the old switcheroo" when a plan to allow people to testify on any council-related topic at the beginning of a meeting came back out of the rules sub-committee as a rule simply allowing for testimony on any regular agenda items at the start of the day... if and only if the testifier gives up their right to testify later in the day when the matter is taken up.
Then there was the "consent calendar," a rule to allow the council to simply ignore a slew of communications such as bill submittal letters and various reports and such. It dispenses with a public reading of the measures and allows the council to pass them all in one fell swoop, assuring that no one in the viewing public will ever know what the measures were about and stopping attendees from having an extra chance to testify on bills and resolutions being introduced.
But for some reason, after a month or more of these changes, unlike Asing who used to take advantage of new rules without even passing them (don't ask), Furfaro still can't figure out what his own rule changes actually were.
Last Wednesday Furfaro started the day supposedly taking up the new "consent calendar" by announcing that "if you talk now you can't talk when the agenda item comes up later" obviously confusing the two rule changes once again.
After some testimony- not on any items that had been placed on the consent calendar but on the "no drinking, pissing or crapping on the county building grounds" laws- he again asked if anyone wanted to talk on the consent calendar.
You could see it on the faces of the staff that they wanted to figure out a way to say "uh, Jay..." but didn't want to embarrass or confuse the easily-offended and already bemused and bewildered Furfaro any further.
Finally it took council regular Ken Taylor- ever the diplomat- to suggest that perhaps if they put the "time for the public to testify on agenda items" on the agenda itself Furfaro might see it there and finally be able to comprehend that not all the rules passed this year are called "the consent calendar."
But what's a poor Minotaur to do? With the firing (no,he quit- no, he was fired- no, he quit- no, he was fired) of former County Clerk Peter Nakamura, Furfaro's flank is exposed since acting clerk Ricky Watanabe has left it to the staff to follow and read the agenda items and none of them has the nerve to try to correct their boss- as Nakamura used to do- when he gets off into La-La land.
We know it probably doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things if Furfaro learns how to chair his way out of a paper bag. But it sure is fun to watch him try.
Since he took over after the de-throning of long time Minotaur and champion of opaque governance, Kaipo Asing, Furfaro has managed to continue the policies that make sure that any potentially relevant or revelatory testimony from the public is squelched. His favorite ploy is what we've come to call the "Jeopardy! Exclusion" where he cuts off discussion between members of the public and other councilpersons just when it begins to cut to the chase because the councilperson didn't put their comment in the form of a question.
But whereas Asing was sharply cunning and devious, Furfaro seems to get more and more befuddled every week by his own attempts at control and command.
As our readers know, emerging under the guise of new council rules were two measures designed to reduce that pesky "public participation in the governing process" which, in Furfaro's mind, is apparently a dastardly plan to delay lunch.
The first rule change was filed under "the old switcheroo" when a plan to allow people to testify on any council-related topic at the beginning of a meeting came back out of the rules sub-committee as a rule simply allowing for testimony on any regular agenda items at the start of the day... if and only if the testifier gives up their right to testify later in the day when the matter is taken up.
Then there was the "consent calendar," a rule to allow the council to simply ignore a slew of communications such as bill submittal letters and various reports and such. It dispenses with a public reading of the measures and allows the council to pass them all in one fell swoop, assuring that no one in the viewing public will ever know what the measures were about and stopping attendees from having an extra chance to testify on bills and resolutions being introduced.
But for some reason, after a month or more of these changes, unlike Asing who used to take advantage of new rules without even passing them (don't ask), Furfaro still can't figure out what his own rule changes actually were.
Last Wednesday Furfaro started the day supposedly taking up the new "consent calendar" by announcing that "if you talk now you can't talk when the agenda item comes up later" obviously confusing the two rule changes once again.
After some testimony- not on any items that had been placed on the consent calendar but on the "no drinking, pissing or crapping on the county building grounds" laws- he again asked if anyone wanted to talk on the consent calendar.
You could see it on the faces of the staff that they wanted to figure out a way to say "uh, Jay..." but didn't want to embarrass or confuse the easily-offended and already bemused and bewildered Furfaro any further.
Finally it took council regular Ken Taylor- ever the diplomat- to suggest that perhaps if they put the "time for the public to testify on agenda items" on the agenda itself Furfaro might see it there and finally be able to comprehend that not all the rules passed this year are called "the consent calendar."
But what's a poor Minotaur to do? With the firing (no,he quit- no, he was fired- no, he quit- no, he was fired) of former County Clerk Peter Nakamura, Furfaro's flank is exposed since acting clerk Ricky Watanabe has left it to the staff to follow and read the agenda items and none of them has the nerve to try to correct their boss- as Nakamura used to do- when he gets off into La-La land.
We know it probably doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things if Furfaro learns how to chair his way out of a paper bag. But it sure is fun to watch him try.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
(PNN) FERC DISMISSES PERMITS FOR TWO KAUA`I HYDRO PROJECTS IN FAVOR OF STATE REGULATION; CASTS DOUBT ON STATUS OF OTHERS
FERC DISMISSES PERMITS FOR TWO KAUA`I HYDRO PROJECTS IN FAVOR OF STATE REGULATION; CASTS DOUBT ON STATUS OF OTHERS
(PNN) -- The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has dismissed Free Flow Power's (FFP) and Kaua`i Island Utility Coop's (KIUC) preliminary permits for "Kahawai Power 4, LLC (Kahawai Power) and Kekaha Ditch Hydro, LLC (Kekaha Ditch Hydro)... to study the feasibility of a hydropower project on the Kekaha Ditch Irrigation System near the town of Waimea, Kauai County, Hawaii," according to an order issued today (Oct. 20).
The order is based on the fact that "another developer, Kekaha Ditch Hydro, was already pursuing (the project) through Hawaii’s state hydropower authorization process" calling KIUC's preliminary FERC permit "claim-jumping."
The order also casts doubt as to whether the rest of KIUC's preliminary permits will be allowed stand if the "potential for a preliminary permit issued by the Commission to interfere with existing development activities at the state level is significant."
"While we cannot let a state process interfere with our exclusive mandatory jurisdiction" the order states, "we do not want our preliminary permit program with respect to projects subject to permissive licensing to chill the development efforts of entities pursuing a legitimate state authorization process."
It is unclear what specific state process FERC is referring to. Previous reports and statements from KIUC, opponents of the FERC process and, in fact, state officials themselves have indicated there is no official written state process for developing and approving hydroelectric projects.
In an email today Adam Asquith who has led the opposition to using the FERC process for hydroelectric development on Kaua`i said
This ruling by FERC is significant and fully supports the arguments of the petitioners against the KIUC Board decision to use the FERC process on Kauai...KIUC should voluntarily withdraw all its preliminary permit applications and give up the ones that have been granted. This action would be consistent with the FERC ruling and KIUC's acknowledgment of its wrongful use of the FERC process.
The order indicated that all other FERC permits in Hawai`i- such as the one that, according to FFP's application, would dam the Wailua River- are in trouble too. In further explaining their decision FERC's order states that:
(FERC) has agreed, in a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of the Interior, to not issue preliminary permits for hydrokinetic projects located on the Outer Continental Shelf. Such decisions are within our authority, so long as we provide adequate justification for them. Examining the facts in the cases before us leads us to conclude that, while the Commission cannot envision every set of facts that may be presented to it, as a general matter we will decline to issue preliminary permits for projects in Hawaii that would be subject to permissive section 4(e) licensing, unless the facts of the particular case present extenuating circumstances that would require the Commission to consider such an application.
The FERC order cited 13 other hydroelectric plants in Hawai`i that had undergone state permitting specifically referring to the example of the Wailuku River Hydroelectric Power Company plant which began producing electricity in May of 1993.
In allowing a state process to supersede the FERC permitting process- as opponents had demanded- the commission wrote that
(w)e note that filing a complete preliminary permit application with the Commission is significantly less demanding than the substantial efforts that appear to have taken place here under the state development process. Thus, the potential for a preliminary permit issued by the Commission to interfere with existing development activities at the state level is significant. While we cannot let a state process interfere with our exclusive mandatory jurisdiction, we do not want our preliminary permit program with respect to projects subject to permissive licensing to chill the development efforts of entities pursuing a legitimate state authorization process...
Nor do we want to force developers of projects not subject to mandatory licensing to engage in the federal authorization process when they have been successfully pursuing authorization from the state, simply because another entity has filed a preliminary permit application with the Commission for the same hydropower site.
The operative paragraph that indicates that KIUC's other hydroelectric projects that have received preliminary permits from FERC will be allowed to undergo state oversight without FERC involvement states that:
in order to avoid similar situations in the future, we will, as a general matter, decline to issue preliminary permits for projects in Hawaii that would be subject to permissive section 4(e) licensing. This proceeding demonstrates the potential for the Commission’s preliminary permitting process to interfere with hydropower development that is proceeding in accordance with a legitimate state authorization process.
(PNN) -- The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has dismissed Free Flow Power's (FFP) and Kaua`i Island Utility Coop's (KIUC) preliminary permits for "Kahawai Power 4, LLC (Kahawai Power) and Kekaha Ditch Hydro, LLC (Kekaha Ditch Hydro)... to study the feasibility of a hydropower project on the Kekaha Ditch Irrigation System near the town of Waimea, Kauai County, Hawaii," according to an order issued today (Oct. 20).
The order is based on the fact that "another developer, Kekaha Ditch Hydro, was already pursuing (the project) through Hawaii’s state hydropower authorization process" calling KIUC's preliminary FERC permit "claim-jumping."
The order also casts doubt as to whether the rest of KIUC's preliminary permits will be allowed stand if the "potential for a preliminary permit issued by the Commission to interfere with existing development activities at the state level is significant."
"While we cannot let a state process interfere with our exclusive mandatory jurisdiction" the order states, "we do not want our preliminary permit program with respect to projects subject to permissive licensing to chill the development efforts of entities pursuing a legitimate state authorization process."
It is unclear what specific state process FERC is referring to. Previous reports and statements from KIUC, opponents of the FERC process and, in fact, state officials themselves have indicated there is no official written state process for developing and approving hydroelectric projects.
In an email today Adam Asquith who has led the opposition to using the FERC process for hydroelectric development on Kaua`i said
This ruling by FERC is significant and fully supports the arguments of the petitioners against the KIUC Board decision to use the FERC process on Kauai...KIUC should voluntarily withdraw all its preliminary permit applications and give up the ones that have been granted. This action would be consistent with the FERC ruling and KIUC's acknowledgment of its wrongful use of the FERC process.
The order indicated that all other FERC permits in Hawai`i- such as the one that, according to FFP's application, would dam the Wailua River- are in trouble too. In further explaining their decision FERC's order states that:
(FERC) has agreed, in a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of the Interior, to not issue preliminary permits for hydrokinetic projects located on the Outer Continental Shelf. Such decisions are within our authority, so long as we provide adequate justification for them. Examining the facts in the cases before us leads us to conclude that, while the Commission cannot envision every set of facts that may be presented to it, as a general matter we will decline to issue preliminary permits for projects in Hawaii that would be subject to permissive section 4(e) licensing, unless the facts of the particular case present extenuating circumstances that would require the Commission to consider such an application.
The FERC order cited 13 other hydroelectric plants in Hawai`i that had undergone state permitting specifically referring to the example of the Wailuku River Hydroelectric Power Company plant which began producing electricity in May of 1993.
In allowing a state process to supersede the FERC permitting process- as opponents had demanded- the commission wrote that
(w)e note that filing a complete preliminary permit application with the Commission is significantly less demanding than the substantial efforts that appear to have taken place here under the state development process. Thus, the potential for a preliminary permit issued by the Commission to interfere with existing development activities at the state level is significant. While we cannot let a state process interfere with our exclusive mandatory jurisdiction, we do not want our preliminary permit program with respect to projects subject to permissive licensing to chill the development efforts of entities pursuing a legitimate state authorization process...
Nor do we want to force developers of projects not subject to mandatory licensing to engage in the federal authorization process when they have been successfully pursuing authorization from the state, simply because another entity has filed a preliminary permit application with the Commission for the same hydropower site.
The operative paragraph that indicates that KIUC's other hydroelectric projects that have received preliminary permits from FERC will be allowed to undergo state oversight without FERC involvement states that:
in order to avoid similar situations in the future, we will, as a general matter, decline to issue preliminary permits for projects in Hawaii that would be subject to permissive section 4(e) licensing. This proceeding demonstrates the potential for the Commission’s preliminary permitting process to interfere with hydropower development that is proceeding in accordance with a legitimate state authorization process.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
OCCUPY THIS
OCCUPY THIS: One of the stranger aspects of the Occupy Kaua`i "rally" (for lack of a better term) last Saturday was the presence of Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) Chief Darryl Perry. But stranger than his mere presence is the way he has taken advantage of the local version of the movement to pump up his image in the media.
Not just his presence but his statements- that essentially he was there to protect the participants- were widely reported although he and his officers just stood by during the one thus-far-unreported incident. Just after the 11 a.m. start two state trucks came by packed with contra-flow "cone-droppers" who yelled at "protesters" to, among other slightly nastier things, stay out of the street, even though no one was obstructing traffic.
And obviously Perry's fellow officers didn't seem to care.
But Perry wasn't done with his use of the rally for personal PR purposes after Sunday's and Monday's TV and print offense.
Today a piece in the online "newspaper" Civil Beat appeared in the form of an "interview" with the Chief although it had Perry's own byline making it unclear if the "questions" were Civil Beat's (as the first question intimated) or Perry's own.
Anyway he took advantage to of the opportunity to say things like:
The “occupy” movement and civil unrest in general is a means to express displeasure and/or dissatisfaction with the current state of the political climate as it relates to government or corporate policy.
Growing up in the 1960s during the Vietnam Era, and being witness to local protest movements concerning Native Hawaiians, I can understand the frustration of individuals who feel that they are disadvantaged through no fault of their own or they need to stand up for others who are not able to do so on their own.
But don't for a minute think he was supporting the confrontational aspect of the movement pitting the "99%" of the people against the 1% that control most of the wealth in this country and county.
He went on to say:
This frustration appears to be global, but I believe what is unique about Hawaii in their appeal to the silent majority via demonstrations, is that we have great respect for each other which is based in our up-bringing of being pono. I want to make it clear, that this respect for one another is not racial and specific to one ethnicity, it is more culturally based, and as you know, Hawaii is a mixture of all races coming together and believing that we don’t check our values at the door for a cause or circumstances; that our integrity is always at the forefront of our actions.
Ah, the old plantation mentality appeal, essentially saying that we 99%ers just love to be exploited by the 1% and are too laid back to do anything but have our say and go back to our cruddy, exploitative, starvation-wage jobs.
Well we wonder how Perry and his KPD officers are going to react if a plan by the group "Occupy Kaua`i" comes to fruition.
According to a widely circulated email, members of the group met Monday evening and
after much thought and even more deliberation, we decided that we would do an actual "occupation" at the park near the county building beginning this Friday. We are going to have a meeting at the pavilion at Lydgate park on Thursday Oct. 20th at 7pm. We are going to go over our goals, concerns (we have somebody looking into legal issues), planning, logistics...etc. We will be having a potluck, so please bring something to share, but no big deal if you don't. Please inform anybody you know who may be interested in standing with the 99%.
Assuming the "legal" issues can be worked out, it will be interesting to see how Chief Perry and his force respond to the only actual "occupation" in the islands- what with the respect and permissiveness he's been expressing toward the group in the media this week.
Not just his presence but his statements- that essentially he was there to protect the participants- were widely reported although he and his officers just stood by during the one thus-far-unreported incident. Just after the 11 a.m. start two state trucks came by packed with contra-flow "cone-droppers" who yelled at "protesters" to, among other slightly nastier things, stay out of the street, even though no one was obstructing traffic.
And obviously Perry's fellow officers didn't seem to care.
But Perry wasn't done with his use of the rally for personal PR purposes after Sunday's and Monday's TV and print offense.
Today a piece in the online "newspaper" Civil Beat appeared in the form of an "interview" with the Chief although it had Perry's own byline making it unclear if the "questions" were Civil Beat's (as the first question intimated) or Perry's own.
Anyway he took advantage to of the opportunity to say things like:
The “occupy” movement and civil unrest in general is a means to express displeasure and/or dissatisfaction with the current state of the political climate as it relates to government or corporate policy.
Growing up in the 1960s during the Vietnam Era, and being witness to local protest movements concerning Native Hawaiians, I can understand the frustration of individuals who feel that they are disadvantaged through no fault of their own or they need to stand up for others who are not able to do so on their own.
But don't for a minute think he was supporting the confrontational aspect of the movement pitting the "99%" of the people against the 1% that control most of the wealth in this country and county.
He went on to say:
This frustration appears to be global, but I believe what is unique about Hawaii in their appeal to the silent majority via demonstrations, is that we have great respect for each other which is based in our up-bringing of being pono. I want to make it clear, that this respect for one another is not racial and specific to one ethnicity, it is more culturally based, and as you know, Hawaii is a mixture of all races coming together and believing that we don’t check our values at the door for a cause or circumstances; that our integrity is always at the forefront of our actions.
Ah, the old plantation mentality appeal, essentially saying that we 99%ers just love to be exploited by the 1% and are too laid back to do anything but have our say and go back to our cruddy, exploitative, starvation-wage jobs.
Well we wonder how Perry and his KPD officers are going to react if a plan by the group "Occupy Kaua`i" comes to fruition.
According to a widely circulated email, members of the group met Monday evening and
after much thought and even more deliberation, we decided that we would do an actual "occupation" at the park near the county building beginning this Friday. We are going to have a meeting at the pavilion at Lydgate park on Thursday Oct. 20th at 7pm. We are going to go over our goals, concerns (we have somebody looking into legal issues), planning, logistics...etc. We will be having a potluck, so please bring something to share, but no big deal if you don't. Please inform anybody you know who may be interested in standing with the 99%.
Assuming the "legal" issues can be worked out, it will be interesting to see how Chief Perry and his force respond to the only actual "occupation" in the islands- what with the respect and permissiveness he's been expressing toward the group in the media this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
