THIMK

THIMK: There was an expression when we were growing up: "Don't confuse me with the facts." In the age of information, as the gap between belief and veracity widens, it's understandable that the expression has evolved. Nowadays we say, "You're entitled to your own opinion but not entitled to your own facts."

The perfect example of course are the misguided and often downright delusional efforts to spread pseudo-scientific fear and trepidation about so called "smart meters," especially here on Kaua`i where the campaign has reached a disinformational zenith approaching the "Big Lie" on steroids.

The campaign has taken on a life of it's own and there are many who now believe that there is an international conspiracy to use killer radio waves to annihilate us all. And it is being led by those diabolical mad geniuses at Kaua`i Island Utilities Cooperative (KIUC).

"Holy Mindf*ck Batman- It's Commissioner Gordon on the phone... Photovoltaic Man has escaped from jail... again!"

So how did this happen. How did an apparently innocuous device using technology that came in with AM radio grow fearsome tentacles to envelop us all with their evil invisible rays?

News Flash- it didn't... it's a freakin' comic book.

We could blame our educational system. Science curricula in primary school has all but disappeared and students who think science is "toooo haaaard" seemingly having carried the day. In addition while Biology, Chemistry and Physics at least appear on the list of secondary school classes, the Principles of Electricity go generally untaught at the high school level. We admit having had to brush up on on the fundamentals of electro-magnetism, radio frequency and radio waves ourselves when this whole nonsense started- it's probably the least commonly known science out there, probably because it's invisible.

If you ask the average Keone on the street how the sound got into his radio he'd probably look at you like you're crazy... before admitting he'd always assumed something along the lines of "it's magic."

Combine that with the much bemoaned lack of skills involving critical thinking- the act of questioning assumptions- among students today, and it's no wonder that anything that is repeated often enough- especially "on-line"- must be true.

Which is why, although you might hold the people who have been led astray over "smart meters" responsible for their own delusions, we really have to point to KIUC as the source of their own problems.

The powers that be have created KIUC to be a bastion of misinformation and outright lies since it's inception. The very history of the initial pricing scandal convinced people that there were kickbacks and other shenanigans, and the lack of documentation have fanned the flames of mistrust every since. The promise by the original board to operate under the state's open meetings (sunshine) and records (UIPA) laws was thrown under the bus when the original bylaws were drawn up.

The commitment had been elicited by the county council at the time in order to get them to drop efforts to set up a municipal power authority, something which had been approved by voters and is now still a part of the county charter. The promise to maintain a truly democratic co-operative were similarly discarded and substituted for with vague standards of membership participation, all subject to secretive manipulation by the board of directors.

The bylaws- the document that is supposed to give the "members" of a co-op the power over major decision making- allowed the board to institute their own policies that stood the often vague bylaws on its head. One example is the "gag rule" that stopped board members from disagreeing publicly with the policies passed by the majority of the board.

Even now when we brought this up with the new PR guy Jim Kelly we were told that the rule had been eliminated only to find out it had not been ditched but changed, so that now a board member had to clear any public statements he or she planned to make with either the chair or the general manager- giving staff decision-making power over board members in a bass ackward example of who has the power and how KIUC operates.

Through the years the board and the "company" in general has operated with a for-profit business model- "we sell you electricity"- and evolved into bastions of secrecy and manipulation.

The debacle of the membership vote on the federal oversight of local hydro-power epitomized KIUC's methodology of "dealing" with members. Instead of having a fair vote with a straightforward question and legitimate pros and cons sent out to voters, they offer a set of admittedly manipulative and disingenuous "pros" and with exactly zero legitimate "cons. " Also, a massive, expensive PR campaign with full page ads in the local newspaper was purchased turning the vote into the type of thing you'd see in a third world country. People were suggesting we bring in Jimmy Carter to investigate.

These example show why it's been so easy to justifiably demonize KIUC and allow people to use their lack of science training and lack of critical thinking skills to set up false solecisms like:

A) KIUC lies
B) KIUC says "smart meters are safe"
Therefore
C) KIUC is lying about smart meters and smart meters are not safe.

But any student of logic will tell you that part of critical thinking lies in making sure that the assumptions are not misapplied. This example would be like saying in B) that "KIUC says 2 + 2 = 4." Just because KIUC says something is true, doesn't automatically make it lie.

If only life were that easy.

What we've seen is that every time someone tries to bust the myths over health, privacy. cost-benefit and a dozen other supposed "issues" with smart meter opponents they are tagged as being "part of the conspiracy."

One recent attempt to set the record straight comes from the Blue Planet Foundation (BPF) a local non-profit "committed to ending the use of fossil fuels on Earth, starting in Hawai`i."

It's Executive Director is Jeff Mikulina who "served for ten years as the director of the state's largest environmental advocacy organization, the Sierra Club, Hawaii Chapter."

In a piece called "Understanding Smart Meters," BPF shreds much of the misinformation spread by smart meter opponents.

For example, it discredits one of the well-publicized claims that "smart meters cause cancer because RF is classified as a “Class 2-B Carcinogen” by the World Health Organization."

It's a half truth- a misrepresentation that leaves out vital information at best. In actuality:

The World Health Organization (WHO) has worked to identify environmental factors that can increase the risk of human cancer. With that goal, WHO has researched hundreds of possible carcinogenic agents, and categorized them into groups:

Group 1 Carcinogenic to humans 107 agents

Group 2A Probably carcinogenic to humans 63 agents

Group 2B Possibly carcinogenic to humans 271 agents

Group 4 Probably not carcinogenic to humans 1 agents

Group 3 refers to agents that are “not classifiable.”]

To date, only one agent is classified as “probably not carcinogenic.” RF is classified in the next lowest group (2B), “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” Many other common agents are also listed in group 2B, including examples like caffeine, carpentry, and coconut oil DEA (an ingredient frequently found in lotions and shampoos). WHO defines “possibly” carcinogenic to mean that there is: (i) “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans” and “less than sufficient” evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals”; or (ii) “inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans” but “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.”

According to the U.S. National Institute of Health, “there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk.”

Another recently stressed issue- especially among those who, while not opponents, have questioned the need and wisdom of purchasing smart meters- is whether a cost-benefit analysis has been done and if so, does it show smart meters to be a good investment. The answer is a resounding "yes" according to BPF.

In answer to the question "Will smart meters be cost-effective?" the essay states:

The numbers show that smart meters are a good investment. For approximately 33,000 households on Kaua`i, KIUC plans to invest about 11 million dollars in the smart meter project (with 5.5 million dollars of that coming from federal funding). So, KIUC can expect that updating the meter on each household will cost approximately $333. Each meter is expected to last 20 years or more, so the cost per year is about $16 per smart meter. That small investment is easy to recover from the benefits of smart meters.

For example, at current electricity prices, $16 translates into 46 kWh of energy per year, or about 4 kWh per month. In 2010, the average Kaua`i household used over 400 kWh per month. In other words, if in-home displays or other advantages of smart meters allow Kaua`i households to become just 1% more efficient, then from the consumer’s perspective, the smart meters will more than pay for themselves. And this calculation assumes that energy prices don’t rise at all for the next 20 years. More likely, as the price of energy rises, the smart meter investment will get better and better.

We can also see this smart investment by looking at the ability of smart meters to help us integrate more renewable energy resources onto a smarter grid. In 2010, KIUC imported over 675,000 barrels of diesel, at a cost of approximately $70 million. Meanwhile, only 1.4% of KIUC’s fuel mix was photovoltaic power produced from the sun. Even if smart meters only enable us to increase that photovoltaic contribution by a modest 2%, Kauai would save on nearly 15,000 barrels of diesel. At today’s oil prices, that would stop more than $2 million dollars per year from leaving the island each year. In five years, the smart meter investment would pay for itself. And again, as the price of oil rises in the future, this investment only gets better.

Other analyses have reached the same conclusion looking at the various ways that smart meters will save money. For example, a 2011 report on the Costs and Benefits of Smart Meters for Residential Consumers tallied up the smart meter savings and concluded that “even with conservative assumptions regarding consumer engagement in technologies, programs, and rate plans, utilities and their customers can expect positive net benefits from [smart meter] investments over the next 20 years.”

The piece also explains how "grid modernization starts with smart meters" and addresses all the other supposed horrors of smart meters.

Here are some of the questions and somewhat truncated answers (read the entire essay for full answers and links to definitions of scientific terms as well as background studies and articles on the subject)

Do smart meters emit hazardous levels of “RF,” “EMF,” and “radiation”?

“RF” (radio frequencies), “EMF” (electromagnetic fields) and “radiation” (energy traveling in waves) are scientific terms referring to electromagnetic energy. “Radiation” does not mean the same thing as “radioactive.”

Electromagnetic radiation surrounds us all the time; the most familiar example is ordinary visible light. Many common devices emit or receive electromagnetic energy. These include things like light bulbs, hot plates, remote controls, computer screens, cordless telephones, cellular telephones, metal detectors, wireless computer networks, and baby monitors. Wireless communication devices, from AM radios, to cell phones, to satellites, all use low-energy electromagnetic radio waves to transfer information. Smart meters also use the same “non-ionizing” low-energy radio waves to transmit information about the electricity grid.

Are smart meters hazardous to health?

According to the World Health Organization, a “number of studies have investigated the effects of radiofrequency fields on brain electrical activity, cognitive function, sleep, heart rate and blood pressure in volunteers. To date, research does not suggest any consistent evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields at levels below those that cause tissue heating. Further, research has not been able to provide support for a causal relationship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and self-reported symptoms, or “electromagnetic hypersensitivity.”

Also answered are the questions

Do smart meters pose a security threat?

Do smart meters cause fires?

Is it true that smart Meters don’t emit radio waves, they emit dangerous microwaves?

Will smart meters give accurate readings?

Are smart meters a violation of privacy?

It hard to blame misguided people who have been whipped into a frenzy by a handful of people who don't have a good understanding of the underlying science and/or. in many cases. aren't commonly engaged in the critical thinking scientific examination requires.

Many tell people to " just Google it" and yes, if you Google it you will find dozens of anti-smart meter posts from blogs and other sources. And yes, you have to go pretty far down the list for find anything supporting their use. But all that shows is the echo chamber of the claims and the fact that if you keep repeating them and forwarding them and reporting them people are going to start believing them no matter what the truth is.

Many have warned that the ubiquitous nature of the internet and the fact that just anyone can post whatever they want to (whether it is true or not) will lead- or some say has already led- to chaos. They usually end up using this to advocate for what amounts to some form censorship so that "trustworthy" sources are what people will read.

But other like us have advocated for a more informed readership- one that is educated in the sciences and has the ability to use critical thinking to examine the underlying principles involved.

To do this each and every reader must ask themselves some questions.

Is there just a single person or a couple of people making claims, maybe even with one claiming a title before their name such as "Doctor?"... doctor of what? and what is their reputation in the field?

Or is the information peer-reviewed and published in a well established and generally trusted science based publication. Is the article based on an actual scientific study?

Is it not just replicable but has it been replicated? Or is it a series of anecdotes and unverifiable claims based on testimonials?

Are those who are trying to convince you trying to tar information by saying that some disreputable person or organization also said it? Is it using "guilt by association" or an ad hominem attack- one that attacks the person, not the idea or claims?

And finally when people start to claim vast worldwide conspiracies involving all the universities, the government and even organization like Blue Planet Foundation (not to mention Parx News Net) ask yourself if this makes sense.

We could "blame" KIUC for being so consistently disreputable that people are willing to believe that anything they say must be a lie. But even so, each of us is responsible for our own actions and just because your cousin got an email saying the sky is falling doesn't mean it's time to sign up for the Chicken Little Newsletter.

RELATIVITY MADE EASY

RELATIVITY MADE EASY: Iconic "Renaissance man" and father of late night television Steve Allen used to don a fedora and read the angriest of the Letters to the Editor culled from various New York City newspapers, adding that "the names have been changed to avoid a punch in the nose."

It was one of the first things we thought of when we read a certain paragraph regarding the always annoying topic of "smart meters" in the LTE section of Sunday's local newspaper

We'll follow suit, calling the writer "Einstein." He wrote:

"Here’s a novel suggestion from a customer/owner of KIUC. Instead of spending tens of millions of dollars or more for smart meters, let’s spend that money to purchase a new, modern grid for our island."

Although it was April 1 it was apparently meant seriously.

For those who don't get it, smart meters are the central element of "a new modern grid," aka- the "smart grid." Whatever people may think about safety or "violations of privacy," by definition, this is what smart meters are and do.

We shouldn't really pick on poor Einstein but his letter does show the schizophrenia that exists over the modernization of the electrical grid as typified by the opposition to these devices.

The fact is that, alleged issues of health, privacy and the rest aside, those who want to see Kaua`i participate or even lead the way in alternative, non-carbon, non-fossil fuel energy had better just give it up if the smart grid- and so smart meters- is not part of our energy future.

People can forget about lower electric bills too because we will always be dependent on expensive fossil (and other carbon-generating) fuels for energy generation without the smart grid.

Let's see if we can make this as simple as possible.

Anyone who spends more than thirty seconds thinking about alternative sources of energy will realize that the most abundant and least environmentally disruptive sources here in the islands- solar and wind- are what they call "intermittent." The sun doesn't shine at night and is severely diminished when there are clouds or even rain storms. And the wind doesn't always blow.

It cannot be counted on unless we want to be without electricity at different times. And few will disagree that they want enough electricity to make sure it's there when they flip the switch.

That is why there are limits on how much of this alternative, "free" energy the system can use- because the other side of the equation is how much electricity people want or need.

That's where the "smart grid"- and so smart meters- comes in.

We've finally reached the technological sophistication to allow a computerized system to maximize the amount of intermittent electricity that the grid can handle. With the increasing sophistication of storage mediums, while we may not fully eliminate the burning of fossil and other carbon-waste fuels including bio-fuels, we can reduce them significantly.

But in order to do that, the computer needs to know up-to-the-second supply and demand for electricity.

And yes, that means that we need to know what the demand is from each user, which is where the smart meter comes in.

The other side of this is that if we don't install smart meters for just about every user, we will be limited in the amount of alternative sources we can integrate into the system. That's why there is no more "net metering" available for those who install photovoltaic systems, forcing them to sell back their excess electricity at lower prices than they pay when they take back from the grid, as happens when their intermittent source is not generating anything and they need electricity.

People make a big deal about the money we are spending on these smart meters . But the $11 million that is being spent on them is chump change because without smart meters to integrate all the various "supplies" with known, specific up-to-the-minute demands, it will mean is that we will need to build a new generation facility to meet future demand.

That means not only higher bills due to rate increases related to the investment in the new facility (whether it is "privatized" or not) as happened with the Kapaia plant, but a higher "energy adjustment" on your bill representing the ever increasing cost of a barrel of oil.

Those who go back a decade or so will remember local talk of building a new power plant. It wasn’t a matter of whether to build one but a matter of where and what kind we needed to keep up with future demand- regardless of any controls over our rate of growth or conservation measures.

Only with the advent of viable alternative technologies- not just dreams of the future but actual realities- did talk of building that new power plant cease.

But unless we can figure out a way to integrate all of the various sources of energy- solar, hydro, wind, perhaps waves and, most importantly, storage mediums like batteries, heat-retaining devices and others that are on the horizon- with the demand of the end users, we might as well forget a future of lower bills and higher use of non-carbon, alternative electrical sources.

A smart meter is simply that device that measures demand on a continual basis. Without them we guarantee a future of burning fossil or bio fuels and limited "clean" energy.

People can understand what science shows to be an innocuous use of RF signals, especially as compared with cell and cordless phones as well as countless other devices we use every day. Or they can rely on what they "read on the internet" and make a decision based on that.

Either way even if you "believe" whatever it is you believe about smart meters you'd better ask yourself if that is worth a future where the dream of non-fossil, non-carbon, alternative energy has gone to die.

CHARGE

CHARGE: Once again less than a third of Kaua`i Island Utility Co-op (KIUC) members voted in the recent board of directors' election. And we think we've discovered at least one reason why.

Although almost a thousand more ballots were cast in this year's election than last, it was not a record number of participants, according to statistics provided by Jonathan Jay, founder of the "P2P" group that organized a huge get-out-the-vote effort.

And despite the campaign that resulted in three new faces on the board, "voter turnout" remained dismally low.

But that may be because not all members are receiving ballots to vote, as one Lawai woman learned last Thursday.

Because of the campaign, Larissa Varaday had heard about the election this time and decided that, because her family's electric bill is in her name, she was going to vote this time. So she want to the KIUC web site, watched the videos of all the candidates, read up on their positions on the issues and chose the three she wanted to vote for.

But Varaday had never received a ballot from KIUC and when she tried to vote on-line she found that she couldn't because she didn't have her "authorization code" number.

After an email and a series of phone calls, she finally reached someone live at KIUC where she was told that it was "too late" for her to vote this time because the Saturday deadline was "too close" and that she could not get her "code" at that late date.

But what she found out next may go a long way to explaining why voter turnout is so low, assuming there are many others out there like her.

Varaday was told that the reason she had never received any ballots for KIUC elections is that five years ago, when she signed up for service, she either did or didn't check a box on her application that apparently determined whether or not she would receive election ballots from KIUC in perpetuity.

"I don't remember whether I checked or didn't check a box- it was five years ago," she said. "I didn't even know there was anything to vote for at the time."

She said she was unclear on Thursday after talking to KIUC whether she had checked or not checked the box but one thing was clear- whatever she had done on her original application had put her on a permanent list of people who never receive ballots or even apparently any notification that there are elections... elections in which they are not currently permitted to participate.

"It's ridiculous," she said on Sunday after the results were in. "I don't think you should have to sign up to vote. Everyone who gets a bill should automatically be able to vote."

Varaday said that she was not even offered the opportunity to come down to the KIUC offices to vote in person. She was just told that with three days left in the election it was too late to give her an authorization code or reverse whatever it was that she did way back when she applied for service.

After spending days doing the research, Varaday felt cheated out of her voice in the co-op's future.

"There are some important issues with energy and all members should get a ballot," she said adding that "it's just not fair" that after doing all that work and finally calling with three days still left she was essentially blown off by KIUC. Rather than having them figure out a way that she could vote- no matter what box she did or didn’t check on her original application- it was apparently too much trouble for KIUC to accommodate a member who wanted to participate in her co-op.

Varaday said she was also told that when people sign up for service, if they want to vote, they are charged a penny- one cent- on their first bill.

We couldn't reach a person at KIUC apparently because it is a holiday weekend.

The question is of course how many more "members" are out there like Varaday who, unbeknownst to them, somehow wound up on the "no ballot sent" list. But even more distressing is the fact that KIUC has kept what amounts to a voter suppression measure a secret.

If KIUC and its board members really wanted to increase participation, doesn't it seem like they would try to make sure that those who filled out their applications really meant to disenfranchise themselves when they failed to correctly read the fine print on their applications?

We're sure that Jay and the others who worked diligently to get people to vote would have liked to know that there was a cap on the number of members who received ballots.

Not for nothing but that fine print on the original application signed by the "member" is also the reason why KIUC can be so cavalier about entering people's properties and installing so-called "smart meters."

While working on another story years ago we discovered that when you sign up for electric service you also sign a form that gives your permission for KIUC- or Citizen's Utilities before them- not only to enter your property, but to install and maintain the wires and meter. "Their" property is defined as all their equipment from the pole to where the wiring in your house begins, "after" the meter.

And if you have electric service you've already given your permission for them to enter your property to install and maintain it all.

The recent federal lawsuit filed by Adam Asquith of Hanalei appears to be based on a misunderstanding of that part of the "contract" between KIUC and the user/member.

After KIUC put out a press release branding him a "smart meter opponent" and characterizing the suit as being part of the movement against smart meters Asquith spoke to Joan Conrow to clear up why he filed the suit.

According to a post Conrow wrote at KauaiEclectic,

Adam said the press release, which brands him a “local smart meter opponent,” is “a total mis- characterization of my stance on smart meters. This is entirely an issue of the sanctity of my home and my right to deny installation of a very new and novel device at my home. I'm a strong proponent of smart technology and smart meters in certain applications. I really would like to be a voluntary participant in this federal project.”

The operative word here is voluntary. “If they would seek consent, they'd find it, but if they seek to force this, they'll find resistance,” he said.

Asquith can't be blamed for not knowing that he had signed away his right to be asked to "opt in" rather than having to "opt out." He's certainly not alone. And to make things worse, obviously KIUC is not exactly forthcoming with this fact even after months of controversy where others have essentially said what Asquith has said but without doing so in a lawsuit.

Just like the fine print KIUC is using to suppress the vote of co-op members like Varaday, the fine print that allows them to control their wires and meter- and "trespass" to do so- is apparently being treated as "proprietary information"--just like just about everything at KIUC.

It makes any notion of transparency and open governance a complete joke.

Yes, apparently KIUC is "fulfilling their legal obligations." But more and more these days, doesn't it seem like that phrase is becoming the last refuge of a scoundrel?

We're pretty sure Varaday and Asquith would agree.

Just because KIUC has the right to do things doesn't mean it's the right thing to do- especially given that it is alleged to be a "co-op," governed and run, by and for, the benefit of the members.

DELIRIOUS

DELIRIOUS: We're convinced that somewhere in the bowels of the offices of Kaua`i Island Utilities Coop (KIUC) there exists a manual detailing how to make sure that every single action they take will be done in the most arrogant, nose-thumbing way possible.

Either that or CEO David Bissell has some diabolical plan based on reversing the public's long held beliefs regarding flies, honey and vinegar.

We suspect it must be the former because it's not easy to get people to rise up in opposition to innocuous and even beneficial actions and go against their own self-interest.

Yesterday's KIUC press release on the heels of a federal lawsuit against so-called "smart meters" filed by North Shore taro farmer Adam Asquith- the one who led the effort to put the kibosh on federal control over hydroelectric projects- is nothing if not designed to piss off even those of us who can find no validity to the claims of long-term, cumulative health effects of smart meters' use of low-level "radio frequency" signals.


Apparently Asquith is avoiding the health issue though, with the suit citing only "serious security and privacy concerns."

But Bissell, ever tone deaf and oblivious to controversies of his own creation, flipping off the community at every juncture so far, continues on his merry way in the release. He starts by saying he is:

"disappointed that a local smart meter opponent felt the need to resort to the filing of a complaint with the federal court in Honolulu on Friday requesting an injunction to prevent KIUC from moving forward with its rollout of smart meters."

Disappointed? What did he expect after- as has been the case with KIUC since inception- telling opponents to shut up and go away, using incremental changes in policy and claiming that the new policy was always the policy.

While the battle over "opting out" of smart meter programs is not new- with California recently implementing a program where consumers can pay to do so- Bissell's original position was essentially that "we're going to install the meters so shut up and sit down."

Then it was approximately "well if you're home when we come to do it and you can catch us doing it, and you insist,we won't install it that day. But we will come back when you're not there and do it anyway."

Now all of a sudden the release says that:

Under the deferred installation plan, each member will receive two weeks' notice prior to installation, and will be given clear instructions for notifying KIUC if they would like to defer. KIUC will take time to assess the situation with the few who defer and determine the most appropriate long-term solution without delaying the efficiency and cost control benefits of this technology to the majority of members

In other words, more "screw you- we're going to do it anyway," but we have developed this fake "deferred installation program"and we're counting on you being too stupid to read critically.

But the sheer arrogance veritably reeks off the page with this statement:

While KIUC is committed to the smart meter technology, the cooperative has said it will indefinitely defer installation of smart meters for the small number of members who are opposed to the technology and submit a formal request," Bissell said. "We hoped this deferral program and our many conversations with the community about smart meters would relieve the concerns raised by the plaintiff and prevent this issue from ending up in the courts.

The "small number" contention is galling enough since the number is growing, mostly based on the thought that ""if KIUC is for it, it must be bad- so I'm against it." But the claim that there were "many conversations with the community about smart meters" is yet another of KIUC's signature whole-cloth-fabrications... apparently part of the aforementioned manual.

But wait- there's more.

KIUC understands the importance of protecting our members' privacy and security," said Bissell. "It is important for our members to remember that KIUC has been responsible for protecting critical information and systems for years. Smart meters are new, but the duty to protect member privacy and ensure the integrity of our electrical grid is not. The storage, protection and sharing of members' private information is strictly governed by co-op bylaws and policies.

Are you serious? Bissell is actually saying "trust us." And to mention the "co-op by-laws and policies"- which violate the very core principles of co-ops by stripping members of their right to democratically decide all major issues- has to be a joke.

The current election for the board of director has been held out as a chance for a "new majority" to take control, although, as we said earlier this month, we haven't heard anything from candidates about returning control of co-op decision making to the members- or expanding membership to every user on the island- and don't expect a total reorganization to meet the standards of a consumer cop-op, even if the miraculous occurs and that majority come to be.


In the "song" Alice's Restaurant, the sheriff has prepared "twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us."

But to the lawman's chagrin, the judge is blind and isn't going to look at the twenty-seven photos.

And like that judge the people of Kaua`i are simply not going to look at the science behind the safety of smart meters or, for that matter, take any claims of adequate security and privacy seriously.

It's too late for Bissell's bluster. We don't want a new board- we want membership control of major decision-making. And nothing less is likely to do.

DISCONCERTING DISCONNECTION

DISCONCERTING DISCONNECTION: It gets harder and harder each year to get excited- make that "involved" since we left "excited" behind years ago- in the election of board members of Kaua`i Island Utilities "Co-op" (KIUC).

Note the word co-op in quotes.

Every year it's the same thing. First a short list of "good" candidates is circulated, promises are made to shake things up, and then those that do manage to get elected do absolutely nothing. Not only do they do nothing but they magically seem to get KIUC-style religion and suddenly start toeing the "company" line.

Note the word company in quotes.

When asked "what the heck happened," they claim that they "can't do anything without a majority" on the board, But of course there is one thing they could do- speak out or at least stop parroting whatever the "official policy" happens to be. And when asked again "why the heck?",they pull a "Board Rule" out, claiming that it prevents them from even speaking unless they speak for the whole board.

That of course is utter bullshi*t. We'd love to see what would happen if those who say this would actually get together and put out a press release- or even verbally inform people who ask- stating that they disagree with the direction of the co-op and espouse their supposed "real thoughts." If the rest of the board tried to remove or otherwise discipline them we'd expect to see a public battle and a public relations nightmare for KIUC that would make the FERC debacle look like the annual picnic.

We've yet to hear the real issues with KIUC addressed by any candidates, even Pat Gegen and Ken Stokes, two on the slate of hopefuls upon whom many are placing their hopes.

We'd support them if we weren't symbolically boycotting the "Soviet-style" election where voters and candidates are limited to "party" members- we say "symbolically" because we don't get a vote in the first place.

But our message to them, should they be elected, is: if you are going to run as "dissidents" and talk about change, act like dissidents and demand change.

So rather than tell you why to vote and who to vote for we'll go over what we'd do if we ran the zoo.

First of all, let's get one thing straight- KIUC is not a cooperative. In a cooperative, according to all definitions of consumer co-ops. members make all major decisions leaving a board of directors to oversee daily operational matters

As we wrote last month,

KIUC is what's called a "Consumers' Cooperative" in which, according... to Wikipedia, "(m)embers vote on major decisions and elect the board of directors from amongst their own number."


With the lack of democracy has come a corporate mindset where the idea of "serving and facilitating members' electricity needs" is an alien concept and, just like an investor-owned electric utility "selling electricity to customers" is the way KIUC operates. In order to become a co-op, KIUC must change its business plan.

Yet no one running has pledged to do this in the materials we've seen and heard.

And that brings up the matter of who is a member. The current set up is one of divide and conquer. Only those whose names appear on the bill has a vote. No account? No accountability. The fact is that there is no one on this island who is not a consumer of electricity in one way or another.

All adult residents must be allowed to become members and be entitled to a vote in order for KIUC to function as a true cooperative.

Yet no one running has pledged to change this.

Many do not know that when KIUC was first forming there was a competing plan to set up a municipal electric utility. As a matter of fact a structural format for doing so was voted upon by the electorate and passed and is now enshrined in our county charter.

It was done by the county council so as to leverage certain accountability standards from the formative board. It was a serious competitor at the time especially because, as would be prescient, many did not trust the co-op to be operated as an open and transparent entity.

Promises were made at the time- alas not in writing- to make sure that the initial by-laws would, to a large degree, reflect the state's open meetings and record law. But when the dust settled nothing of the sort was so enshrined.

KIUC must start to operate, not just as a co-op, not just with an expanded membership, but under, if not the letter at least the spirit of the state's Sunshine and Freedom of Information laws.

Now let's get to the real heart of the problem with the resultant corporate- as opposed to the co-op- concept.

Much of it is explained in excellent fashion in three of recent posts by Life of the Land's Executive Director Henry Curtis, who has been a public interest watchdog of the electricity industry and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for many years:

What is the relative cost of different types of electricity?

Is Avoided Cost to blame for high electric rates?

Why is my electric bill so high?

We urge you to read them. But in a nutshell here's why your rates are sky high and why they will never come down under the current way business is done--even though the use of renewable, non-carbon electricity generation should be ultra-cheap compared with the use of fossil fuel.

Theoretically, through things like solar and wind power (although many say that with current technology wind on Kaua`i may be impossible due to the danger to endangered bird species), we should be able to cut our bills by as much as 75%--some say by even more.

Solar however is "intermittent"--it doesn't generate anything when the sun doesn't shine. So theoretically there is a limit as to how much we can depend on it for our electricity needs

Without storage- not just batteries but other technologies like thermal storage- for now, there's a limited amount of solar that the whole "grid" can use. As time goes by, and newer and better storage mediums come on-line, that amount will rise significantly.

But let's assume for now that there is a limit to the amount of solar.

Even with that assumption, rather than be a facilitator for individuals to generate their own electricity through on-bill payment of zero-percent loans for photovoltaic systems (and maybe even storage), KIUC is selling off whatever solar capacity the island has for use in solar "farms" where they can buy the electricity and sell it to the consumers.

The problem is that the amount of electricity from solar farms built and owned by our "co-op" is minimal as compared to the amount we contract for with investor-owned and operated farms

That's bad enough. But according to Curtis it is federally mandated that electric companies- and co-ops- buy all the electricity produced from investor-owned farms at the same rate that it would cost to generate the same amount of kilowatts of electricity with fossil fuel.

That's a vast simplification and Curtis goes into detail--but you get the idea.

Certainly if all this were to be opposed by KIUC and the PUC, the county and state might put limits on, possibly even ban, investor-owned solar through land-use laws.

But in our name KIUC has gone before the county council and state legislature and asked for- and received- laws that will insure automatic approval with no permits necessary.

And that's where the capacity for solar is going- not onto your roof where you could take advantage of the savings but to investors who will charge the same arm and a leg as we are paying for fossil-fuel-generated electricity.

KIUC should be making sure that as many users as possible are able to self-generate their electricity with photovoltaic systems, and either help provide storage on site or via central storage facilities. And they should be taking all that "investor-owned solar-farm" capacity to expand "net metering"- selling and buying back the electricity at the same rate.

But instead KIUC is not just using up all the capacity the grid can handle for intermittent energy to build vast facilities which are mandated to be bought by us at close to the cost of fossil fuels, but they are discouraging home generation by denying any more net metering and charging high buy-back rates.

And- believe it or not- they are charging huge up-front payments- sometimes up to tens of thousands of dollars- for "studies" to show the grid can handle each user, one at a time.

In a nutshell the reason your rates are so high is because KIUC is doing everything they can to put money into the pockets of investors- those who buy the land and build the facilities and then sell the electricity to our "co-op" at multiples of the price people would pay for those same types of facilities on their roofs or in their back yards.

Some have pointed out many technical issues as well as some issues of fairness with the facilitation of net-metering photovoltaics for individual homeowners. But those are solvable problems and certainly there are even more "issues," as we've raised here, with the "we sell you electricity" model that KIUC insists on using despite the opportunity that being a unique type of co-op presents.

KIUC is apparently the only electric co-op in the country to both generate and distribute electricity. Others do one or the other. KIUC has said that this is problematic. But with a different type of business plan this could actually help provide the savings that home generation facilities provide.

Additionally if we're going to "farm" things like hydro, geothermal and wave generation, they should be done internally by the co-op and owned by "us" rather than allowing others to sell us electricity at exorbitant rates.

We certainly haven't heard this discussion from any candidates.

There are other things we'd like to hear from candidates and, when and if they are elected, board members.

Why in the world we are paying millions every year for public relations, advertising, community activities, scholarships and all the rest of that crap is beyond comprehension. It is a remnant of the investor-owned utility that were designed to "give back to the community"- something a co-op doesn't need to do by definition, especially if they, as we said, allowed every adult user of electricity on the island to be members.

(Actually there is one candidate who talks about this but she is a right-wing nut that perennially comes out at election time- one who wants us to use nuclear energy.)

Also because KIUC operates with a corporate mind-set there's a tendency to "cheat" on "renewables" targets as mandated by law. Rather than defining renewables as being "carbon-free" we include things like bio-diesel and ethanol as well as bio-mass and even garbage-to-energy in meeting those "goals."

Finally the ultimate goal of any strategic plan- which of course should be done through membership participation and be membership-approved instead of written in some back room and approved by the board only- should have a target of, not reducing but, eventually eliminating fossil fuel from our generation mix. It may be a long range target and one that will be very difficult to achieve but there's no good reason not to put the goalposts where they belong.

There are others- if we listed everything and fully discussed each issue we'd be here until after the election is over. But the bottom line is that if any of the "good" candidates get elected this time, unless we hear from them throughout their terms and they don't just sit down and shut up like they're told, then this election, like those in the past, will have been another exercise in futility.

ME OR YOUR LYIN' EYES

ME OR YOUR LYIN' EYES: We've made no secret regarding our take on any purported health issues with so called "smart meters." As we wrote on December 1, 2011, when it comes to the science behind claims of cumulative health problems caused by "non-ionizing 'radiation'"- "radiation" being a sort of misnomer since it is not in any way, shape or form the same as the "ionizing" radiation in radioactive substances- there really is no "there there."

Despite almost a century and a half of man-made RF beginning with the telegraph, although it can burn the crap out of you if the waves are long enough and it's placed right next to human tissue, studies have failed to find any accumulation of these waves that are generated by everything from cell and cordless phones to remote controls to radio and television broadcasts.

And, even if somehow it could be shown that there was a "cumulative effect," the amount and proximity to people of the signals in smart meters pales in comparison to placing a cell or cordless phone next to your brain.

It is certainly not "a hundred times worse" as the self-proclaimed "biggest smart meter activist in the state" told the county council on Wednesday.

So why then are so many otherwise rational people on Kaua`i going nuts over the Kaua`i Island Utilities Co-op (KIUC) purchase and imminent installation of these new wireless meters which should be welcomed as a way to increase the amount of "intermittent" energy generation (such as wind and photovoltaic) we can reliably accommodate?

Opponents have been successful by basically telling others that any information on health effects or other issues such as "privacy" are all generated by "the industry" and "the government"- even though that is patently false- asking "how can you trust the 'electric companies'" or the "'big brother' of government" to tell you the truth.

Of course that is what's called an "ad hominem" attack which, according to Wikipedia, "is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy."

But the fallaciousness of an ad hominem argument is dependent on how much the source is worthy of trust. If the track record of an individual or organization for truthfulness, honesty and open, transparent dealings with controversies is that they have never been truthful, open, honest or transparent in the past, people tend to take the old "how do you know if KIUC is lying?- because their lips are moving" joke as gospel.

Well we're pretty sure you can see this one coming up Rice St. because when it comes to a track record for deceit and opaque decision-making, KIUC is very model of modern major mismanagement.

We don't really have to go through the liturgy do we? Whether the bungling of the roll-out of proposed hydroelectric power projects by imposing the potential for federal meddling in local state environmental protections or the lack of any membership consultation- supposedly the hallmark of cooperatives- in the decision-making that preceded the underhanded manipulation of the petition-driven ballot effort to overturn the board's decision, KIUC has been exemplary in how not to gain the trust of the people of Kaua`i.

Even KIUC's inception was fraught with controversy with a group of hand-picked members of the "good old boys and girls" political elite offering an absurdly high- and later to be rejected by the PUC- original bid and eventually paying former owners Citizen's Electric of Connecticut what many say was up to twice what was shown to be the "book value," of Kaua`i Electric... as our "highest in the nation" electricity rates can attest.

Is it any wonder that, no matter how silly, no matter how unscientifically-based, no matter how self-defeating the rush to ban smart meters is, it has gained the support of so many otherwise rational people?

The reason is clear. It's because KIUC is a cooperative in name only when it comes to governance.

KIUC is what's called a "Consumers' Cooperative" in which, according again to Wikipedia, "(m)embers vote on major decisions and elect the board of directors from amongst their own number."

A normal cooperative board simply oversees the day-to-day operations but any major decision- such as strategic planning or even the decision to sign a power purchase agreement with a news solar or wind farm- is supposed to be made by the members.

How hard is that concept to understand? Apparently it's like reading hieroglyphics for the majority of the board of directors which has yet to consult the membership on any decision much less ones of great magnitude, in direct violation of the precepts of a co-op.

According to the same article:

Cooperatives are based on the cooperative values of "self-help, self-responsibility, democracy and equality, equity and solidarity" and the seven cooperative principles:
-Voluntary and Open Membership
-Democratic Member Control
-Member Economic Participation
-Autonomy and Independence
-Education, Training and Information
-Cooperation among Cooperatives
-Concern for Community

Does that sound like KIUC? Just ask yourself if there is true "Democratic Member Control" or is the nature of board decision-making that it's done behind closed doors often citing "proprietary" information- a concept directly in opposition to the basics of co-op decision-making principles.

Education, Training and Information? Information is anything but free-flowing at KIUC and, as a matter of fact, the flow of information from individual board members is tightly controlled through a gag rule preventing them from speaking publicly unless the content is approved by the board's chair or- get this- the CEO, meaning that the employees are telling the employers what they can and can't say.

Voluntary and Open Membership? People are automatically members as soon as they sign up for electric service and, although there is a way to "opt out," users are told they will pay more if they do so because they will not receive the "patronage capital"- a sort of rebate that represents the "profit" that would be there if it was an investor owned company. And there certainly isn't an "open membership." The majority of electricity consumers are not members because membership is reserved for those who pay the electric bill. Assuming the average household is between two and three people that means that most people cannot become members.

Concern for Community? The concern seems to be for the company rather than the community with the community being kept in the dark about major decisions and even routine matters through the gag rule and a general attitude of paternalism left over from the plantation days that is at the very root of the origins of KIUC.

Is it any wonder that when KIUC says "white" people assume "black?" When they say "up" can't we say with some certainty that the likelihood is that the real answer is "down?"

And when KIUC tells us "smart meters are safe," even if they are, it's no wonder more and more people are willing to believe that they are not.

ROUND AND ROUND SHE GOES

ROUND AND ROUND SHE GOES: When we wrote our "how-to" instruction manual for how one breaks into the county's old boy network a week ago- using the case of former KIUC Board Member, now County Energy Coordinator, Ben Sullivan as an example- we might have made it seem like the system was an invention of current Mayor Bernard Carvalho, Jr.

Hardly.

The "flack catcher" model has been the prime modus operandi of up-and-comers for decades, with administrations going back to statehood and before, picking the best and the brightest of those willing to stick their neck out, draw a dotted line and place it on the chopping block, somehow surviving to populate many if not most of the county's appointed positions.

The only difference is that Carvalho has established the ability to "take one for the team" as the only pre-requisite for a job in his administration.

But when Joan Conrow broke the story on Tuesday about the absurd plans of Grove Farm to tear down the most affordable of all housing, the old sugar-cane-era "Koloa Camp", to build "affordable housing,"- here defined as almost half-a-million-dollar homes that people need to make around $75,000 to get a mortgage for- we realized that we touched only on those entering the county's revolving door system.

We were reminded that the spokesperson for Grove Farm is VP Mike Tresler whose rise to the plantation-era company- now owned by AOL founder Steve Case, cousin of senate candidate Ed Case- is a prime example of what one can accomplish on the back end if one is inclined to fall on swords on a regular basis.

You can read Conrow's coverage at her Kaua`i Eclectic blog and her account of last night's meeting with Koloa residents at the web site of "For Kaua`i" for all the gory details- except for this "what the 'f' was he thinking?" quote from Tresler, obtained by Vanessa Van Voorhis of the local newspaper:

“(The eviction is) a tenant-landlord issue. That’s a private issue … They’re trying to make it a public issue and we’ll push back and just say it’s nobody’s business. We’re required to give that notice, so we’re going to give them that notice. … have we applied for any permits or anything yet? No. Are we in the whole planning stages of it? Yes, we are.”

Tresler- who, perhaps because of the publication of the ill-advised quote, was not at the meeting because, Conrow says, he allegedly had a flight to Honolulu last night- didn't just stumble upon his high paying job as a Grove Farm's chief henchman.

Tresler earned it as Director of Finance for the county and his role in putting the final nail in the coffin of the police career of former Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) Chief KC Lum by, when all else had failed, canceling his contract with the county on orders from... well, let's just say from above because, although Mayor Brian Baptiste was in charge at the time, anyone paying attention knew that forces behind the effort to slander and fire Lum was former Council Chair Kaipo Asing and current Councilmember Mel Rapozo.

We've detailed the stories of both Lum and Tresler in these pages before, describing details of secret investigations and pseudo trials as well as the covering up of secret documents, including the one written by the administrative judge in Lum's hearing containing exculpatory language actually clearing Lum. When the document was leaked and a member of the public tried to submit it to the council as part of his testimony, Asing actually refused to allow council services to take possession of the report.

But none of that was legally enough to fire Lum. The only way to do that, according to the county charter, was apparently by getting the Director of Finance to cancel Lum's contract.

Tresler, a sycophant of Baptiste, whose loud rants in the county building halls attempting to intimidate those who had publicly charged Baptiste with a variety of unethical and politically unsound actions was legendary among the "nitpickers,"- the council regulars who "got" what was going on as Lum, along with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Police Commission, got the shaft.

Well, as if you couldn't guess, canceling Lum's contract was one of Tresler's last actions as Finance Director and it wasn't more than a twinkling of an eye before he landed his cushy VP job with Grove Farm.

Has Tresler gone too far getting caught in a callous sounding quote? If you think so, you haven't been paying attention. A raise and a promotion seem more like it. Or did you forget that this is Kaua`i?

----

Look for light posting next week- we need a break.

AND THE EXTRA POINT IS GOOD

AND THE EXTRA POINT IS GOOD: As we approach four years and a thousand posts at this location, most of those who peruse our pages regularly recognize- perhaps with a "there he goes again" eye-rolling now and then- what, to be kind, might be called pet peeves and perennial postulates...

One such "kick" is a result of the fact that, when it comes to Kaua`i Island Utilities Coop (KIUC), the self-drawn target on KIUC's collective butt seems to be subject to re-detailing every time the board meets.

And because they seem to have chronic foot-in-mouth disease and a penchant for opaque operations, they've become easy targets even when their actions are fairly innocuous, as has been the case with the so-called controversy over "smart meters."

Even after going on a quest debunking the health scare- and questioning the so-called "privacy concerns," especially those of Facebook users (a nominee for the the "picture in the dictionary" under "irony"), it's been hard to get those concerned about the energy future of Kaua`i under KIUC on track.

Our long-standing gripe in KIUC's case has been a simple concept that most agree with when they hear it: that the problem with the "coop" is that they still have a business model that says "well sell electricity to our customers," rather than seeing their "job" as facilitating the generation and distribution of power in a manner that empowers the individual "consumers," especially though home generation, at the lowest possible cost and in a manner that's fair to all... cost notwithstanding.

As with many of our repeated rants, we're no closer to actualization than we were the first time we said it than now after the 100th.

But yesterday, after a conversation with founder and facilitator of the "p2pKauai" Facebook group Jonathan Jay, we realized one big problem with this proposed change of philosophy is the lack of- or actually a dispute over- the definition in this context of "consumer."

That's because KIUC is organized as a "coop" and so it is comprised of "members." That's a concept that works well with things like credit unions and organic food distributions where anyone can join based on their desire to participate.

But it is the wrong model for a public utility, where every single person on the island is forced to be a "user."

And especially one on an island with a limited, "closed" system.

Jay told us that even though he lives "off the grid" and doesn't use KIUC's services at home, he is forced to use it every time he goes to the store.

And like a majority of users on the island, he has no voice in the energy decisions being made for him at KIUC. With a population of around 70,000 and the number of "members"- defined as someone who has an electric meter and pays a bill- at around 7,000- only one of 10 have a say in their energy future.

KIUC- to be fair, like other electricity coops- never got around to changing the business model left over from when our system was owned by a for-profit company. Instead they latched onto a common model used across the country, mostly in rural locales.

But changing the business model alone won't really make for a participatory organization where people feel they have a "buy-in" to decisions made in their name.

For that, KIUC needs to move off the current model of serving its "members" and begin serving "users."

That's even more important due to the unique nature of the "closed system" we are forced into by virtue of being an island. There are no far flung places to integrate into our "grid" so where and by whom power is generated, distributed and used becomes much more personal. If we want everyone care about decisions on things like conservation and generation issues we need to empower all the users- everyone on the island- not just the few who directly pay a bill to KIUC.

Recently at a KIUC Board of Directors meeting, according to Jay, a "member" questioned the board's policy of only allowing members to speak at meetings. Amazingly the board decided that it will now let any member of the public speak on agenda items at meetings. Of course non-agenda items are still forbidden from discussion so, for all intents and purposes, it is virtually impossible to get the board to engage in a public discussion of concerns- even those of members, much less all users.

It's time for KUIC to take a good look at the philosophies behind their process and let that decision to empower "users" at meetings be a precedent for an attitude adjustment.

IT'S BEN DOVER TIME

IT'S BEN DOVER TIME: Our "extra" post yesterday- a news item on Ben Sullivan's hiring by the county to be the new Energy Coordinator- was confirmed in a county press release today.

But apparently others weren't as caught off guard as we were. We heard from quite a few readers saying that they were Casablanca-style "shocked-shocked" that Sullivan parlayed his short stints as founder and head of Apollo Kaua`i and election to the Kaua`i Island Utilities Coop (KIUC) Board of Directors into a well-paid job in the administration of Mayor Bernard Carvalho, Jr.

But looking back on Sullivan's rise from FOB malahini to appointment to Carvalho's crony-filled staff shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who watches the administration's hiring practices and has interacted with Sullivan since his election to the KIUC board.

We began getting them soon after Sullivan's election- emails, comments and phone calls increasingly expressing disillusionment and dissatisfaction with Sullivan's apparent unwavering shift from perceived dissident to KIUC defender of the realm.

It came to a head with his support for the whole FERC-FFP deal followed by the propaganda- some say misinformation- driven vote that allowed the co-op to go ahead with federal involvement in hydropower projects rather than rejecting FERC in favor of strictly state oversight... especially given the potential for federal "trumping" of the more environmentally-protective local regulations and approval process.

But that alone wouldn't be enough to be a "good fit" for the yes-men and women that kow-tow to Carvalho, in an administration where "never is heard a discouraging word" from appointees... or at least not if they expect to serve in their "at-the-pleasure-of" positions for long.

Sullivan didn't just support board decisions as is required under KIUC rules- he firecely defended them. Board Rule 27 mandates lock-step public adherence to board-determined positions and policies and requires all public statements by board members to be cleared by either the chair or (get this) the CEO. The latter creates a potentially unethical if not illegal situation whereby employees of the not-for-profit are directing members of the board.

He has seemingly relished engaging members of the public in support of those positions and dove in head-first in a rare-for-Kaua`i trait of personal engagement with dissidents... of which there are many when it comes to the electricity coop.

And that is what has made Sullivan a perfect fit for the Carvalho administration. It seems to matter not that he is an architect by education and, although his non-profit work has dealt with electrical power issues, one would think that a highly paid, highly skilled position like this would be filled by someone with training and/or experience in the field... although that hasn't stopped most of Carvalho's appointees from landing jobs with a notable lack of credentials.

Sullivan has proved his worth to Carvalho simply through his ability to stick to the guns of his higher-ups, as evidenced by his stick-to-it-ive-ness in taking on all comers in defending the KIUC realm.

It matters not that he is a relative newcomer to the island or that he is a not "local"- usually a negative for patronage hires under Carvalho. It matters only that he is ready, willing and able to act as a human shield for arrows directed at his boss.

We like Ben. He's the nicest of guys and actually we're sure he actually believes in what he says and what he does. It's likely he will bristle at this analysis of why he got his "dream job."

But given the history of the hiring practices since Carvalho took office just over three years ago, it's hard to come to any other conclusion.

(PNN) SULLIVAN NAMED KAUA`I ENERGY COORDINATOR; WILL RESIGN KIUC POST

SULLIVAN NAMED KAUA`I ENERGY COORDINATOR; WILL RESIGN KIUC POST

(PNN) Kaua`i Island Utilities Coop (KIUC) Board Member Ben Sullivan is resigning to take the newly created Energy Coordinator job with the County of Kaua`i, according to a Facebook post by Sullivan.

He will begin working on December 19 to carry out the recently completed Kauai Energy Sustainability Plan.

"I am excited about the new position," Sullivan wrote in the post. "I will be working within the Office of Economic Development, with one of my major responsibilities being planning & implementation of energy efficiency & conservation programs for the County. Will be working on PUC issues, advocating on County energy issues to the State leg., working with the Council, and a lot of other cool stuff (helping integrate electric vehicles, etc.) I will also be pursuing grants for County energy projects and working with the team on strategy and implementation of (The Kauai Energy Sustainability Plan) KESP. Dream job, I'm jazzed up about it."

According to KIUC's by-laws, their board will appoint a replacement to complete Sullivan's term.

According to the website of the Kauai Planning & Action Alliance (KPAA), which helped develop the KESP, it "was developed for the County of Kauai by SENTECH Hawaii LLC with assistance from Maurice Kaya LLC and Kauai Planning & Action Alliance (and) integrates stakeholder and public input with objective energy analysis to create an implementable energy plan intended to offer guidance for Kauai to utilize local, sustainable, renewable energy. "

Sullivan will be working under the head of the Office of Economic Development George Costa in the administration of Mayor Bernard Carvalho, Jr.

METERING MR. SMARTY PANTS

METERING MR. SMARTY PANTS: We've spent a goodly part of the last decade predictably disappointed after Kaua`i was able to purchase its electric utility under the rubric of a "co-op."

Despite efforts to ensure things like democracy and open governance, right off the bat we could see the handwriting on the wall- the lack of adherence to those tenets has been all we thought it wouldn't be.

Kaua`i Island Utilities Co-op's (KIUC) opaqueness and manipulation of recent ballot issues has left most "members" disillusioned if not downright pissed off. And who can blame them.

That has also made every single thing they do subject to not just legitimate scrutiny but every wacko conspiracy theory that is even remotely related to providing the public with electricity.

So enter the latest paranoia-based plot to supposedly do us harm- "smart meters."

According to Wikipedia:

A smart meter is usually an electrical meter that records consumption of electric energy in intervals of an hour or less and communicates that information at least daily back to the utility for monitoring and billing purposes. Smart meters enable two-way communication between the meter and the central system.

Some have questioned the safety of smart meters because they "communicate" using electromagnetic signals. That is true- they use much the same low-level radio frequency (RF) signals and pulsed signal structure as wi-fi, modern cordless phones, garage door openers, baby monitors and similar devices.

But because any electromagnetic force (EMF) is defined as "radiation" there is concern among those who aren't privy to the science behind low, as opposed to high, level RF.

For an excellent detailed discussion on the subject of the health effects of smart meters we turned to an article by Bob Spofford the Energy Chair of Sustainable San Rafael, an independent, Marin County, CA, umbrella non-profit "dedicated to advocacy and community education (of) residents and business people organized around the idea that we can-and must-do more in our own community to fight global warming and encourage more sustainable living."

The article was published at the web site of "Open4Energy" an independent, consumer non-profit that evaluates energy technology devices.

An EMF creates electromagnetic waves (EMW). Spofford writes that it

pours out of every star - - not just as visible light, but in a very wide range from radio frequencies (thus radio astronomy) and all the way up beyond visible light to X-rays and gamma rays. This is important, because it means that humans evolved in an environment that included a lot of electromagnetic radiation (from the sun) and that we are adapted to certain kinds of radiation hitting us and passing through us with no harm.

There are two potentially harmful types of EMF, ionizing radiation and dielectric heating which have been extensively studied since the 1930's.

Spofford describes the ionizing radiation (IR) saying that that

is where very short wavelength waves are able to knock electrons off of molecules creating ions (charged molecules.) These in turn can cause all sorts of nasty biological effects. The lowest frequency that can cause ionization is ultraviolet, which can result in sunburn and skin cancer. They go up from there through X-rays, gamma rays and the particles from radioactive decay, all of which can cause burns, radiation sickness, cancer and more.

As we all know, this is the kind of radiation that can have a cumulative effect.

The second health issue is dielectric heating (DH) which includes things like microwave ovens, cell phones and yes, smart meters.

The potential harm in DH is related to the amount of power and the proximity to the source. While there is anecdotal evidence that long term exposure to a cell phone placed right beside the brain could cause cancer, it's important to note that despite 20 years of study no one has been able to show any spike in health issues for cell phone users in legitimate, published, peer-reviewed studies.

But it's also important to note that the dielectric heating in cell phones- and smart meters- is not the kind of radiation that is cumulative and is generally, as noted, all over the place in the atmosphere. And, of course, no one is sticking their head next to their smart meter for hours on end. As a matter of fact, the signal from a smart meter is emitted in short bursts, at most a few times a day.

As Spofford notes:

The reason for the focus on cell phones is that the radio transmitter in a smart meter is quite similar to a cell phone. It operates on 900 MHz at a power of 1 watt or less. On the other hand, it is usually much, much farther away from your brain. A 1-watt cell phone 1 inch from your brain would is 1,296 times stronger than a 1 watt smart meter 3 feet away (and it’s 14,400 times stronger than one 10 feet away and 57,600 time stronger than one 20 feet away.) This is the inverse square law in action.

The thing is that if you get burned or even "fried" by DH- as happened when a worker stood right in front of an extremely powerful microwave transmitter, Spofford notes- you'll know it. But it's a one time event, unlike the ionizing radiation that radioactive materials emit.

This is a vast oversimplification of the science. If you want a whole lot more than you probably ever wanted to know- or if you've actually studied this stuff and want the full low-down- we suggest you read Spofford's essay in full.

As to the actual arguments from those who claim there might be a scientific basis for the health danger of smart meters he says:

That’s pretty much where established science leaves off and speculative theories begin. The people opposed to smart meters haven’t been arguing that the danger is recognized things like ionizing radiation or tissue heating. Rather, a lot of them express a sort of generalized fear that there’s just “too much radiation” in our environment, and the smart meter is one more log - - perhaps one log too many - - on the fire. They fear that some day we’ll discover a health problem from the cumulative affect of all this low level radiation around us.

I have several problems with this line of thinking:

1. If there is something going on, the big culprit will have to be the cell phone, since the radiation exposure there is so much higher than all the other sources. Compared to cell phones, the smart meter isn’t a “log” on the fire, it’s more like a broom straw. So we should keep looking at the cell phone research, but in 20+ years, not much to be worried about has emerged.

2. They don’t really propose a mechanism by which this unspecified damage might occur, so they can’t tell us what facts would change their mind. This makes it well-neigh impossible for the PUC or any other fact-based body to say “here’s the proof you want that these things are safe.”

3. They keep coming back to the possibility of cumulative exposure to a number of low level radiation sources, and drawing parallels to things like cigarettes, which people once were told were safe. However, cigarettes and other cumulative risks are like ionizing radiation. There are chemicals in cigarette smoke that damage cells from the first exposure, and that damage then accumulates with repeated exposure until symptoms appear. Plus, the epidemiological connection between smoking and cancer was crystal-clear as soon as people started looking at the statistics.

We’ve been working with radio waves for over 100 years, and we’ve been walking around in them since the dawn of time, and we haven’t discovered any such pernicious effect from the kind of waves coming off the smart meters.

As to the rest of the health-based arguments against smart meters:

Beyond the cumulative exposure worries, there are people advancing a bunch of ideas that are just pure speculation (to use the polite word.) Their common thread is that there is something unique about the radiation from a smart meter – because it is attached to house wiring or transmits in pulses – that makes it a much greater health threat than other devices radiating at the same frequency and power. (Fact check: computer WiFi, garage door openers and modern cordless phones all use the same frequencies and pulsed signal structure.)

These claims of unique dangers are posited in very sketchy terms by writers who seem to have little understanding of the underlying science, so I have to guess at the supposed basis for them. As best I can determine, they seem to be borrowing – and misunderstanding – little snippets from ionizing radiation, the propagation of electrical noise and the mathematics of square waves. Until I see a more complete explanation for one of these theories that makes sense in terms of known science, I have to treat them as wishful thinking. However, the proponents are quite certain that their wishful “theory” alone is grounds to reject smart meters entirely.

One more item. Many argue that the Precautionary Principle- which, according to Wikipedia, says that "if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action,"- should be operative here as it is with, for instance, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

With GMOs the possible disastrous scenarios in changing the genetic material in organisms and releasing them into nature and in fact ingesting them, is well established and even proponents don't argue there are dangerous scenarios, only that they haven't found anything... yet.

But with smart meters, Spofford concludes by saying that:

My understanding of the Precautionary Principle is different. We can’t “prove” that anything is absolutely safe. That would require certainty of an absence of something, which no one can deliver. (There’s probably a long word for that in Philosophy courses.) The precautionary principle requires that if someone can advance plausible, specific reasons why a product might be harmful, we should hold back until we meet some reasonable level of proof that this isn’t the case. My interpretation of “plausible” in this context means that the feared threat, even if highly improbable, is at least consistent with known science. Otherwise, I could propose banning cotton clothing based on my personal theory that wearing cotton for 40 to 50 years makes your gut grow, your hair turn gray and your eyes go bad. (After all, there’s certainly a correlation.)

So far, the claims I’ve seen that the radiation from a smart meter is somehow “special” do not pass this test.

So, my net takeaway on the health issue is, yes, there’s always the distant possibility that some solid evidence connecting cell phones and health risks will emerge even after all these years. However, even if that happened, we’d have to question whether devices like smart meters, with thousands of times less radiation exposure than phones, are a danger.

We're sure that those that are convinced that smart meters are a monstrous plot to kill us all are sincere. Some cite reasons other than health-related reasons for banning them or at least allowing people to opt out of installing them and we won't deal with them here. But none have addressed the science and instead have used innuendo and "you don't trust the government/big corporations/etc. do you?" arguments which, on Kaua`i, given the history of KIUC is an effective, if fallacious, argument.

So what's the harm in letting people do the Chicken Little routine? The problem is that while they and those they convince are busy tilting at windmills, there are real energy-related issues that demand attention like fracking, Canadian sand-oil and the proposed pipeline, and off-shore drilling... as well as peak oil.

It wastes the precious energy of the small pool of apparently dedicated activist on something for which there just isn't any "there there."

Don't be fooled by pseudo-science or ad hominem and straw man arguments. There are bigger fish to fry than smart meters and indeed, if we are ever to end our dependency on fossil fuels and integrate carbon-free alternative energy into our grids, smart meters are going to be an essential element of that effort.

SAIL AWAY

SAIL AWAY: We admit to not paying a lot of attention as we let the six hour plus snoozefest- i.e. last week's Kaua`i County Council committee meetings- play, preferring our murder mystery about a detective with Tourette's Syndrome to the seemingly interminable description of the "Multimodal Land Transportation Plan" that began the meeting.

All we could think was, as Glenn Mickens would say, "as if." But that's another column entirely.

It didn’t seem to get any better as Bill 2415 "relating to exemptions for commercial alternative energy facilities" hit the floor. Apparently some developers are seeing dollar signs and have all this "useless" ag land which can now be developed into large-scale solar farms. And they all want to maximize profits by getting a tax break from the county for installing something that just sits there and creates profit for 20 years with minimal maintenance.

But as the discussion droned on as to whether it was indeed agricultural or industrial use, the fact that there would be a limit to the amount of electricity that our local electrical co-op can handle from an "intermittent source" like solar- which only makes hay when the sun shines- came up.

That got our attention because once again it reminded us of the fact that, as anyone who wants to actually put solar panels on their roof and avoid paying for electricity has found out, they are no longer able to participate in the "net metering" program.

Net metering is when the excess electricity one generates from their photovoltaic systems is sold to the co-op at the same rate the user pays for using the co-op's juice, making the "meter run backwards" as they say.

Anyone who missed the boat on net metering gets paid something for the juice they can't use, but not the same "equal" amount that those who got in early pay.

Unless, that is, you're an ag-land-rich developer.

For some reason, even though the amount that individuals can produce without throwing the whole electrical system into chaos has reached its limit, the amount for those who want to sell electricity to KIUC on a large scale basis has not.
And they're even apparently going to get a tax break.

There are plans of course to figure out a storage medium, whether by using super-batteries or by heating water or a through few other schemes. But these seem to be reserved for those who want to "sell you electricity" which of course is, like investor-owned utitlities, still the core business plan of our local electric co-op, despite the fact that it is now owned by the end users.

Getting "free" electricity from the sun is a great idea. The problem comes when the way we go about it is to make it so that the only one who gets it for "free" is KIUC which then turns around and sells it to us rather than facilitating putting panels on individual users' roofs and providing its members with the "free" stuff.

(Saturday Special) THE LUNATIC IS IN MY HEAD

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.

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.