Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 9, Number 5, 1 May 1992 — OHA chair gives geothermal testimony [ARTICLE]

OHA chair gives geothermal testimony

By Lynn Lee During the 1970s oil crises, Hawai'i began to take a serious look at energy production. Unlike most other states, Hawai'i haei not developed energy production methods that were independent of oil. Additionally, the oil Hawai'i used was not locally produced but was shipped in from Alaska and Mexico. In the eyes of the state this made Hawai'i extremely vulnerable to an oil embargo. Determined to find alternative methods of energy production, the state began to explore solar, wind, hydroelectric and geothermal power. Some success was achieved with eaeh method. Geothermal power, because of its potential for private development and the possibility of federal funding, was actively pursued by the state. The state's plan included generation of 500 megawatts (MW) of electricity produced in wellfields on the east rift zone of Kilauea volcano, Puna district, island of Hawai'i. It was anticipated that this energy couid be transmitted to O'ahu and Maui by a transmission line that wouki traverse the length of the Big Island, drop down into the Alenuihaha Channel and run to Maui, eome ashore for a short distance on Maui, then eonhnue across the oeean floor to O'ahu.

To cover the distance between the Big Island and Maui the cable will have to be dropped into the Alenuihaha ehannel at depths greater than 6,000 ft. A cable has never been placed at that depth before and a new type of cable has to be produced to do it. Operations were to begin in 1995 with 25 MW generation, and reach full capacity of 500 MW in 11 years — in May 2006. The 500 MW of geothermal energy was to be generated through either 10 or 20 steam-driven power plants. A single large plant eouki generate all 500 MW. However, reason suggested, several small plants could better avoid an ineapacitating lava flow. If one large plant was built the ehanee it might be demolished by lava flow is small, but lava damage could wipe out geothermal production until the plant was repeiired or replaced. Alternately, building several small power plants would increase the risk of lava damage but if one or even a few were damaged by lava, generating power could be made up by the remaining plants during repair or

replacement. The state appealed to the community for support of this plan to remove Hawai'i from dependency on imported fossil fuel. However, the community's eoneem, then and now, is that negative effects could outweigh eeonomie benefits.

Community, environmental, and private organizations filed lawsuits over issues in geothermal exploration, development and production. One of the largest and most pressing being the laek of an Environmental Impact Statement for the project. In 1990 the federal court determined that an EIS must be done for the remaining phases of the geothermal project. In September 1991 the U.S. Energy Department issued a nohee of intent to prepare an EIS. Hearings were held in March and Apiil throughout Hawai'i to solicit community eoncerns that should be addressed in the EIS. To provide information on the concerns of the Native Hawaiian community the following testimony was sent to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy by Clayton H.W. Hee, chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

OHA testlmony The Office of Haweiiian Affairs thanks you for this opportunity to present our concerns for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the rema*ning portions of the geothermal development project. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs has not taken a position concerning geothermal development specifically. However, since 1986 we have had the following position regarding alternate energy: "The Office of Hawaiian Affairs supports responsible alternate energy development, fully cognizant of the broader concerns regarding the total environment, cultural resources, engineering competence and eeonomie impact on the community and the Native Hawaiians." In light of this position on alternate energy we have the following concerns about geothermal development and the information necessary to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement. The state of Hawai'i has compelling interest in balancing the requirements of energy self-suf-ficiency against the need to protect the environment. We are an island community with limited space and resources. These limitations produce conflicting ideas and priorities for use. As a state we are 90 percent dependent on imported fossil fuels for energy. While this high rate of dependency on imported fossil fuels is a cause for eoneem, it is equally important that we remember that our future is 100 percent dependent on our environment.

Traditionally and culturally the Native Hawaiian community views the land and its resources as gifts to be reasonably utilized in the present while always aware of the need to preserve and perpetuate resources for the future. The preservation and perpetuation of natural resources is an important part of our cultural heritage and practice. It is also important to remember that Hawaii's economy, as well as our cultural background, is dependent on the preservation of our physical environment. Like few other places on earth, Hawai'i is its environment.

Those unique physical and cultural attributes that define Hawai'i as special must be diligently preserved if we are to survive economically. Utilization of geothermal energy in Hawai'i is a new and relatively untested field of energy production. The general public and the Native Hawaiian community view the potential benefits from geothermal exploration and development with considerable skepticism. While the benefits seem somewhat remote the negative effects are easily determined. There is a very real eoneem that we may be sacrificing too mueh of our natural environment, culture and socio-economic future for the vague promise of energy self-sufficiency. The eommunity fears that the risks involved in geothermal development will be greater than any eeonomie advantages. The major eoneem is how mueh risk are we taking?

We ean identify the potential social, health, environmental and eeonomie problems but ean we find satisfactory answers to these problems? In growing numbers the community is not sure that the planning efforts of the state have been proportionate to the size and scope of the project. This public skepticism and eoneem requires that the environmental impact process be as thorough and straightforward as possible. Previous attempts to fast-track geothermal development by circumventing the environmental process have sent a message to the Native Hawaiian community and general public that the protection of the environment is of lesser importance to the state than geothermal development. Such messages diminish the eommunity's confidence that adequate research and planning for geothermal exploration and development ean or will be carried out. The 500 megawatt project envisions that enough energy could be produced and exported to meet to meet Oahu's growing energy demands. It is hoped that this locally produced energy would greatly reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels for energy production and thereby strengthen our eeonomie independence. Unfortunately, these isolated eeonomie goals have not been tested against the possible environmental, social and wide-range eeonomie costs to the community. This then is the measure that is required in this EIS.

The State of Hawai'i and the community need to know what the environmental costs of this project will be. This requires an unbiased, thoroughly researched and prepared statement. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs contends that the following conditions must be met for an acceptable HS: " 1. No development on ceded or Department of Hawaiian Home Lands without assurances of health and safety measures and recognition of native rights and appropriate entitlements. 2. No development of Department of Hawaiian Home lands whieh would decrease benefits or lands available to Native Hawaiians under the terms of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, as amended. 3. No development or encroac'nment in preservation areas or area.s whieh contain unique ecosystems. 4. Discussion of iong term impacts to the rain forest.

continued on page 14

Geothermal from page 8

5. Incorporation of a mechanism whieh will insure that all federal, state or county preservation or conservation regulations are observed. 6. Recognition of traditional and cultural rights including: (a) Guaranteed access to and use of oeean resources for the community. (b) Guaranteed access to forests for gathering. (e) Recognition and respect for Native Hawaiian religious beliefs and practices. 7. Complete and frank discussion of the impacts of the project on the adjacent eommunities. 8. Discussion of air quality impact including a thoroughly researched and complete discussion of hydrogen sulfide and radon emissions. 9. Discussion of anticipated health and safety mitigation measures. 10. Discussion of noise impact and mitigation measures. 11. Discussion of impact on flora and fauna from industrialization of a rural area and from hydrogen sulfide and other ehemieal emissions. 12. Discussion of the effects to human and wild life from the overland electrical transmission lines whieh will move energy from the island of Hawai'i to O'ahu.

13. Discussion of the effects on fish, coral, and other oeean species from the electrical and/or magnetic fields that will be generated by an undersea cable. 14. Discussion of how electrical ar>d/or magnetic fiekJs generated by an undersea cable will effect the sonar abilities of whales and dolphins. 15. Discussion of other alternate energy production possibilities such as wind and solar power and demand-side production anei an assessment of them against geothermal production. Include in the discussion social costs, environmental costs, and empirical justification or laek of justification. It is important to emphasize that from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs perspective this EIS must be exceedingly thorough in its approach and analysis. This is the last opportunity to answer most of the questions that have plagued this community concerning the development of geothermal power. If the EIS is allowed to be biased or superficial the skepticism of the community will be reinforced and opposition will be unanimous. However, a complete and straightforward report will serve to inform the community in a mueh needed manner. Mahalo.