Economic Impacts of Kid's Health - Asthma & Childhood Cancer

The Facts About Children’s Health

Asthma An estimated 6.3 million children (8.7 %) under 18 year of age had asthma in 2001.¹

Hospitalizations for asthma increased from 21 per 10,000 children in 1980 to 29 per 10,000 children in 1999.²

In 1999, asthma was the fourth ranking cause of non-injury-related hospitalization among children less than 15 years of age.³

In 2000, 233 children under 18 years of age died from asthma.⁴

The number of children ages 1-14 dying from asthma increased 180 % from 1979 to 1998.⁵

Asthma disproportionately affects children from lower-income families and children from different racial and ethnic groups.⁶

Asthma is the most common chronic childhood disease in the United States.⁷

Economic Impact of Asthma In 1994-1996, children with asthma missed approximately 14 million school days a year.⁸

The direct and indirect costs of asthma to the U.S. economy were estimated at $14 billion in 2002.⁹

· About 1/3 of the costs are associated with children’s asthma.¹⁰

· School absenteeism costs over $1.5 billion each year in lost productivity.¹¹

Asthmatic patients and their families pay a higher portion of their medical care costs than patients with other diseases because of heavy reliance on prescription medication combined with lower insurance coverage for prescription drugs.

· They pay about 25 % of the cost themselves compared to 10% for other general medical care costs.¹²

Lead Poisoning About 430,000 American children (approximately 2 percent) ages 1-5 had elevated levels of lead in their blood (that is, levels at or greater than 10 ug/dL) in 1999-2000. That number of lead poisoned children declined significantly from 4.7 million in 1978.¹³

Childhood lead poisoning reduces IQ, which can never be regained¹⁴.

The decline in blood lead levels is due largely to the phasing out of lead in gasoline between 1973 and 1995¹⁵ and to the reduction in the number of homes with lead-based paint from 64 million in 1990 to 38 million in 2000.¹⁶

Today, elevated blood lead levels are due mostly to the ingestion of contaminated dust, paint, and soil.¹⁷

Blood lead levels are higher for children ages 1-5 from lower-income families and for certain racial and ethnic groups.¹⁸

Economic Impact of Lead Poisoning Reduced cognitive ability, as measured by IQ scores and valued in terms of forgone earnings, is estimated to be about $9,600 per IQ point lost.¹⁹

The cost of not eliminating lead exposure to children between 2000-2010 is expected to be about $22 billion in forgone earnings.²⁰

Childhood Cancer In 1998, approximately 12,400 children younger than 20 years of age were diagnosed with cancer and 2,500 died.²¹

Cancer is the leading cause of death by disease among children between 1 and 19 years of age in the United States. It is the third most common overall cause of death, preceded only by intentional injuries and accidents.²²

Leukemia was the most common cancer diagnosis for children under age 20 from 1975-1995, followed by central nervous system tumors, and lymphomas.²³

The causes of childhood cancer are poorly understood, though in general it is thought that different forms of cancer have different causes.²⁴

Economic Impact of Childhood Cancer The total cost per case of childhood cancer is estimated to be approximately $623,000 (in 1998 dollars).²⁵

The estimated annualized cost of cancer for children under 15 years of age is $4.8 billion

(in 1998 dollars).²⁶

Developmental Disorders Approximately 12 million children (17 percent) under age 18 suffer from one or more developmental disabilities, which include physical, cognitive, psychological, sensory, and speech impairments.²⁷

In 1997-2000 about 0.6 percent of children were reported to be diagnosed with mental retardation.²⁸

Between 3 and 8 percent of the babies born each year will be affected by developmental disorders such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or mental retardation.²⁹

Mental retardation is more common for children from lower-income families and for certain racial and ethnic groups.³⁰

The causes of developmental disorders are generally unknown.³¹

Economic Impact of Developmental Disorders State and federal education departments spend about $36 billion each year on special education programs for individuals with developmental disabilities who are 3-21 years of age.³²

Although it is hard to estimate the costs of caring for children with more serious forms of mental retardation, the costs may be as much as 10 times higher than caring for a child who does not have a disability.³³

Footnotes:

¹EPA, America’s Children and the Environment, Second Edition, 2003, p. 69. See http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/publications.htm.

²Ibid, p. 75.

³Ibid.

⁴CDC, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/asthma/asthma.htm.

⁵American Lung Association, Trends in Asthma Morbidity and Mortality, March 2003, Table 4. See http://www2.lungusa.org/data/asthma/ASTHMAdt.pdf.

⁶EPA, America’s Children and the Environment, p. 71.

⁷National Academy of Science, Clearing the Air: Asthma and Indoor Air Exposures, 2000, Executive Summary, p. 1.

⁸Mannino, D., D. Homa, L. Akinbami, J. Moorman, C. Gwynn, and S. Redd, Surveillance for Asthma-United States, 1980-1999, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 51(SS01), p. 5. See http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/SS/SS5101.pdf

⁹NIH, http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/02_chtbk.pdf.

¹⁰EPA, National Costs of Asthma for 1997, pp. 21-22.

¹¹American Lung Association, Table 17.

¹²EPA, National Costs of Asthma for 1997, p. 24.

¹³EPA, America’s Children and the Environment, Second Edition, 2003, p. 53. See http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/publications.htm.

¹⁴ATSDR, Case Studies in Environmental Medicine, Lead Toxicity, revised September 1992. See http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/p0000017/p0000017.asp.

¹⁵EPA, National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1998 (2000), p. 78. See http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd98/toc.html

¹⁶D. Jacobs, R. Clickner, J. Zhou, S. Viet, D. Marker, J. Rogers, D. Zeldin, P. Broene, and W. Friedmanm, 2002, The Prevalence of Lead-based Paint Hazards in U.S. Housing, Environmental Health Perspectives 110(10): 599-606 (2002).

¹⁷CDC, Screening Young Children for Lead Poisoning: Guidance for State and Local Public Health Officials, 1997. See http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/guide/guide97.htm.

¹⁸CDC, http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/factsheets/childhoodlead.htm.

¹⁹President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children, Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards, February 2000, p. A-26. See http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/leadhaz.htm/$file/leadhaz.pdf.

²⁰Ibid, p. A-28.

²¹L. Reis, M. Smith, J. Gurney, M. Linet, T. Tamra, J. Young, and G. Bunin, Cancer Incidence and Survival among Children and Adolescents: United States SEER Program 1975-1995, National Cancer Institute, NIH Pub. No. 99-4649, 1999, p. 1. See http://seer.cancer.gov/publications/childhood/introduction.pdf.

²²Ibid.

²³Ibid, p. 2.

²⁴EPA, America’s Children and the Environment, Second Edition, 2003, p. 76. See http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/publications.htm.

²⁵P. Landrigan, C. Schechter, J. Lipton, M. Fahs, and J. Schwartz, Environmental Pollutants and Disease in American Children: Estimates of Morbidity, Mortality, and Costs for Lead Poisonings, Asthma, Cancer, and Developmental Disabilities, Environmental Health Perspectives 110(7): 771-8 (2002).

²⁶Ibid.

²⁷CDC, http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dd.

²⁸EPA, America’s Children and the Environment, Second Edition, 2003, p. 85. See http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/publications.htm.

²⁹B. Weiss and P. Landrigan, The Developing Brain and the Environment: An Introduction, Environmental Health Perspectives 108 (Suppl.3): 373-4 (2000).

³⁰EPA, America’s Children and the Environment, p. 85.

³¹CDC, http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dd.

³²Ibid.

³³CDC, http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dd/ddmr.htm.

EPA’s Mission to Protect Children

In 1995, EPA made it a priority to explicitly and consistently take into account environmental health risks to infants and children in all risk studies and public health standards set for the U.S.

The President’s Executive Order on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children requires all federal agencies to address health and safety risks to children, coordinate research priorities on children’s health, and ensure that their standards take into account special risks to children.

EPA established the Office of Children's Health Protection (OCHP) to support and facilitate Agency efforts to protect children's health from environmental risks. The mission of OCHP is to make the protection of children's health a fundamental goal of public health and environmental protection in the U.S.

EPA’s mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment. Protecting children where they live, learn, and play is essential to ensuring that our environment is safe and healthy, now and for future generations.

EPA

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Children’s

Health Protection (1107A)

EPA 100-F-04-900

Recycled/Recyclable

Printed with Vegetable Oil-Based Inks on Recycled Paper

(Minimum 50% Postconsumer)

Process Chlorine Free

Protecting children from environmental risks is fundamental to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to make the world a healthier place, now and for future generations.

Children need clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, safe food to eat, and a healthy environment to learn, grow, and thrive. Yet every day, children are exposed to environmental risks that may stand in the way of these basic necessities. They may even be more vulnerable to some environmental risks than adults for several reasons:

· Children’s nervous, immune, digestive, and other systems are still developing and their ability to metabolize or inactivate toxicants may be different than adults;

· Children eat more food, drink more fluids, and breathe more air in proportion to their body weight than adults; and

· Children’s behavior—such as crawling and placing objects in their mouths—may result in greater exposure to environmental contaminants.

Many of the health problems that result from exposure to harmful environmental conditions can be prevented, managed, and treated. This is why EPA considers risks to children when setting standards to control pollution. You can play a role, too.

Children Need Protection Where They Live, Learn, and Play

Each day, children may be exposed to a variety of environmental contaminants at home, school, and outdoors. These environmental exposures can have harmful effects on children’s health and behavior, and the amount and timing of exposure can influence the magnitude of these effects. Children need our protection. Learning about children’s environmental health is the first step to protecting them from environmental risks.

Children are often at risk of exposure to indoor air pollution.

Poor indoor air quality can cause respiratory illness in children because their respiratory systems are still developing. They also breathe more air than adults in proportion to their body weight. Respiratory diseases, such as asthma, can severely affect a child’s ability to live an active life.

Exposure to allergens and irritants, including animal dander, cockroaches, mold, and dust mites, plays a significant role in triggering asthma episodes in children. Secondhand tobacco smoke is another asthma trigger that typically occurs in the home. It may cause bronchitis, pneumonia, and ear infections, and is believed to be associated with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Since children spend a lot of their time at home, day care, and school, reducing their exposure to indoor environmental triggers in these places is especially important.

Outdoor air pollution may affect children more than adults.

Outdoor activity is part of a healthy lifestyle, but when air pollution levels are high, adverse health effects may result. Outdoor air pollutants that have been shown to be particularly harmful to children include ozone and fine particulate matter. Other air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and toxic air pollutants, also may affect children’s health.

Ground-level ozone (a component of smog) is formed when NOx and other air pollutants react in the presence of heat and sunlight. Smog can cause coughing, throat irritation, and chest pain. It can reduce lung function, inflame the linings of the lungs, and trigger asthma attacks, even the day after ozone levels are high. Repeated inflammation over time may permanently scar lung tissue. Children and teenagers who are active outdoors–especially those with asthma or other respiratory illnesses–are particularly vulnerable to smog.

Some fine particles are emitted directly into the air from combustion sources such as cars, trucks, buses, construction and farming equipment, and electric utilities. Fine particles in urban air also result from chemical reactions of SO2 and NOx with other chemicals in the atmosphere. Exposures to fine particles have been linked to a number of children’s health problems, including bronchitis and asthma. Diesel exhaust is a source of fine particles and is also a likely human carcinogen.

SO₂ is formed when fuel containing sulfur–mainly coal, oil, and diesel–is burned, and during metal smelting and other industrial processes. The majority of SO₂ released into the air comes from electric utilities and refineries, particularly those that burn coal. SO₂ contributes to respiratory disease, and may aggravate existing heart and lung disease.

NOx refers to a group of highly reactive gases emitted by motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other fuel-burning industrial and commercial sources. NOx gases can contribute to respiratory illnesses especially in children, and as noted above, both SO₂ and NOx can react to form harmful particles in the air.

Toxic air pollutants, also known as hazardous air pollutants, are emitted from combustion sources, such as motor vehicles and power plants, and industrial activities. A number of commonly occurring toxic air pollutants, including solvents, organic chemicals, and heavy metals, have been shown to harm the developing nervous system, reproductive organs, and immune system–all of which grow and develop rapidly during the first months and years of life. Long-term exposure to some toxic air pollutants may cause cancer.

....

Children may be exposed to contamination through the water supply.

The U.S. has one of the safest water supplies in the world. Public water systems test water for more than 90 chemical, microbial, and radiological contaminants, and are required to treat water to remove harmful substances under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

While actual events of serious drinking water contamination are infrequent and usually of short duration, it is possible for children to ingest contaminated water from a public water system or, more commonly, from a private well or by swimming in polluted bodies of water. Microbial contaminants, such as bacteria and viruses, are of special concern because they may cause immediate or acute reactions, such as vomiting or diarrhea. Long-term exposure to some contaminants, including pesticides, minerals, and solvents, at levels above standards may cause gastrointestinal problems, skin irritations, cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, and other chronic health effects. High levels of nitrates in drinking water can cause serious illness in infants. If contamination poses an immediate health threat, water suppliers are required by law to notify customers right away. Individuals with private wells are responsible for testing to assure that the water is safe to drink.

Online Resources to Protect Children

The following is a list of online tools and resources provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to educate and encourage the public to protect children from environmental risks at home, at school, and outdoors. EPA is working with many partners to protect children’s environmental health and links to non-EPA Web sites can be found at www.epa.gov/children.

LIVE

Ground Water and Drinking Water – Provides information about the quality and safety of our drinking water.

www.epa.gov/safewater

Drinking Water from Household Wells – Gives private household well owners answers to the most frequently asked questions, describes potential problems, and offers maintenance suggestions.

www.epa.gov/safewater/faq/faq/html1#pwell

LEARN

www.epa.gov/safewater/lead/schoolanddccs.htm

PLAY

Beach Watch – Describes EPA’s goals of improving public health and environmental protection programs for beach goers, and provides the public with information about the quality of their beach water.

www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches

Outdoor Air Quality – Offers information about air quality in your area and provides links to air pollution data and maps.

www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/whappen.html

AIR NOW – Provides information on ozone maps, air quality forecasts, and health facts.

www.epa.gov/airnow

Diesel Exhaust and School Bus Idling – Encourages school districts to establish school bus idling guidelines to protect children from exposure to diesel exhaust.

www.epa.gov/region01/eco/diesel/assets/pdfs/Diesel_Factsheet_Schoolbus.pdf

Other useful tools and resources:

EPA’s President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/Whatwe_fedtask.htm

EPA’s Strategy for Research on Environmental Risks to Children

www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/strat4resrch.pdf

Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Inventory of Research (CHEHSIR)

www.oaspub.epa.gov/chehsir/chehsir.page

America’s Children and the Environment: A First View of Available Measures

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/pdf50.htm/$File/ACE-Report.pdf

Smart Growth Information

www.epa.gov/livablecommunities

*For links to additional online resources about children’s environmental health, visit EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection web site at www.epa.gov/children.

Ammonia Odors from Vermont Biomass Plant

Federal Government granted this community $500,000 to monitor the odors from this biomass plant!
full story

Pepeekeo Power Plant permit documents

EPA database Permit 0229-01-C documents

Engineering Report 1999

Proposed Permit Details

HuHonua's Parent Company Considers selling Divisions

MuniMae press releases

Hawaii Tribune-Herald, August 8, 2008

Power facility: No coal
by Jason Armstrong
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer
Published: Friday, August 8, 2008 11:11 AM HST
Casual survey finds most support Hu Honua proposal
Plans to reopen the Pepeekeo power plant no longer include using coal as a backup fuel to wood and other biomass, Hu Honua Bioenergy LLC officials said Wednesday.

The company is responding to area residents' opposition to coal burning, said Tim Lasocki, Hu Honua executive vice president.

Other temporary substitutes for biomass will be explored, he said, adding that garbage incineration won't occur at the plant.

Hilo Coast Power Co. had been using coal before the facility closed at the end of 2004, when its contract with Hawaii Electric Light Co. expired. Before coal, bagasse from crushed sugar cane stock fueled the plant.

"We're trying to do with the plant what was historically done," Lasocki said. "That's basically our mission: Return the plant to its original use using wood chips."

Hu Honua, a partnership of MMA Renewable Ventures LLC and Ethanol Research Hawaii, bought the plant and obtained a 35-year lease-purchase option on 26 acres surrounding it, company Director Dan KenKnight said.

Company officials are in discussions with HELCO, and hope to achieve a price that's "significantly below" HELCO's cost to produce power by burning oil, said Rick McQuain, Ho Honua's vice president of power sales.

"This is our first biomass investment," said Lasocki, who serves as MMA's vice president of business development.

MMA, which would finance, operate and serve as majority owner of the power plant, was the nation's No. 1 installer of photovoltaic plants last year, he said.

The company built and runs a $100-plus million, 14-megawatt solar-photovoltaic plant that powers a U.S. Air Force base in Nevada, Lasocki said, adding that is the largest such system in North America.

In the years since the Pepeekeo plant was closed, the surrounding farm land has sprouted luxury homes. This land-use change has attracted new residents not accustomed to having a smokestack as a neighbor.

As a "good-faith gesture" to win community approval, Hu Honua is seeking to amend its operating permit to prohibit the use of coal, Lasocki said.

That change, if granted by government regulators, will make it difficult for any future operator of the Pepeekeo plant to ever burn coal again, he said.

Other efforts to win over the community include reducing plant noise and ending emissions that fouled water catchment tanks and caused other damage, KenKnight said.

"We can say unequivocally that will not happen," he said of previous emission-related damage.

He also offered to provide safe shoreline access to popular Pepeekeo fishing spots.

"We're just going to do what the community wants," KenKnight said.

Those efforts, combined with meetings the company has held with the community, have gained a measure of approval, according to results of an informal survey.

Some 387 Pepeekeo residents out of 392 approached have signed a petition in support of resurrecting the power plant, said Richard Baker, Hawaii Island director of the ILWU labor union, which conducted the unscientific survey finished Tuesday.

Baker said he and other union officials found only two individuals who said they are "not interested" in signing the petition and three others opposed to the project.

The ILWU is backing the project in hopes of creating jobs for its members, some of whom have never fully recovered from the demise of the sugar cane industry nearly 15 years ago.

According to Hu Honua officials, refurbishing the plant would generate 130 to 140 temporary engineering and construction jobs.

Another 25 people would be hired to run the facility, while 110 more jobs would be created in related industries needed to produce and deliver biomass to the plant.

The fuel source would be wood chips expected to come from the island's emerging forestry industry, along with vegetation cleared from forested lots, trees removed to thin forests, and invasive species from eradication efforts, Lasocki said.

"This is untreated wood that we're talking about," he said.

The material is not what Hawaii County uses to make mulch, KenKnight said.

"The stuff we don't want is a lot better for mulch. We want the real hard, woody stuff," he said, adding the biomass plant could "peacefully coexist" with mulch-making efforts.

The plant would require 200,000 tons of "green" biomass annually, which would be delivered on two or three trucks arriving every hour during daylight hours only, Lasocki said.

"Our plan is to run (the plant) full-time, 24-7," he said.

That level of operation, he said, is expected to net 22 megawatts of electricity that Hu Honua would sell to HELCO.

Hilo Coast was supplying that same amount of power to HELCO before it ceased operations.

According to HELCO, one megawatt of electricity is enough to power about 500 Big Island homes.

Ho Honua's operation is expected to cost between $25 million and $40 million. The money would come from long-term loans typically used to finance power plants, Lasocki said.

Its plan is to open the plant by December 2010. "That is our target," Lasocki said.

Is he confident of meeting that goal?

"We wouldn't be sitting here today if we weren't optimistic," Lasocki said Wednesday. "We feel we're offering something of benefit to Hawaii, which makes us optimistic."

E-mail Jason Armstrong at jarmstrong@hawaiitribune--herald.com.

Response to HuHonua's Claims

DISCUSSION POINTS

SMA Permit 221 Use Restrictions

1. Today, coal as a fuel is inconsistent with county, state, Helco plans for encouraging renewable fuels and decreasing our dependence on imported fuels.
2. Coal pollution (particulate matter, gases, including mercury) from burning coal drifts with our trade winds over Hilo, created a health issue for Hilo and the Hamakua coast residents.
3. A traffic restriction was not included in this permit, yet is a requirement in the current SMA Permit Application process.
4. Procedure to notify affected individuals and lessees is 400 feet from the boundary; a practice that assumes an innocuous use of the land. This procedure creates disharmony between the affected residents and the county.

CONCLUSION: The permit was the right decision in 1985 and 1995 when sugar was an industry, land was under cultivation and the county needed electricity, but it does not solve any of today’s problems for Helco and degrades the lifestyle for citizens living nearby.


Industrial zone issues

1. Public planning must consider the potential cumulative impact of individual developments, each of which taken in itself, might not have a substantial adverse ecological impact. Now, 25 years later, the zoning is inconsistent with the actual land uses.
2. The decision to zone this industrial did not consider longer term issues which have since occurred, e.g. elimination of sugar cane industry, division of adjacent land into smaller parcels, construction of single family residences on those lots, more electrical capacity from other power plants, job shifts to west Hawaii, etc.
3. Current zoning conflicts with the actual land use, today’s population density, and past representations made to land purchasers.
4. Continental Pacific, developer of the area surrounding the plant, petitioned the county in 2003 for a change to the industrial zoning in order “to eliminate the potential for incompatible uses.” It was denied.
5. Allowed noise levels are harmful to nearby families occupying residential zoned lots, and injurious to others living on adjacent small farms. The original applicant’s request (Continental Pacific LLC) claimed that “the proposed limited industrial zoned lot will be located a significant distance from the urban/residential area… and is adequate to mitigate any possible visual or noise impacts within the area.” In fact, residents both mauka of the highway and residents within the area were disturbed by the plant noises.
6. Air quality was significantly degraded during the plant’s operation causing soot to settle on houses both makai and mauka of the plant, unlike the representation made by the developer that “the plant is not a large source of pollutant and would not contribute to air pollution within the vicinity of the project area.”
7. During the county’s deliberation of Continental Pacific’s applications in 2003, there were “no written comments or objections from the general public or adjacent landowners”. This is not the situation today, as the issue resonates with hundreds of residents who signed our petition in 2005 and are signing one this year.
8. Suggest benign activities such as: plant nurseries, agricultural tool repair business, manufacture low-cost passive solar hot water heaters, research facility for wave energy, or tourist hotel or bed & breakfast.

CONCLUSION: The zoning made sense in 1985 when sugar was a viable industry, but it is inconsistent and inappropriate for the current land uses.



HELCO

1. Helco signed a 5-year contract for electricity, ending 12/31/2004, timed to coincide with new capacity coming online. Helco did not renew the power purchase agreement with the independent operator, and viewed the contract as an interim situation only.
2. In 1995 the Planning Commission had a different view of the need for a power plant at this location, but that is not true today.
3. The future need for electricity is in Puna and West Hawaii.
4. Locating power plants close to the source of demand is optimal because less power is lost during short transmission distances. The Pepeekeo site wastes more of its transmitted electricity because of its distance to Puna and west Hawaii, thus is not an optimal business decision.
5. Helco says that its oil powered plants use fuel oil that is leftover after refining other petroleum products such as gasoline. So generating electricity from non-oil sources will not eliminate the need to import oil to Hawaii.

CONCLUSION: Helco’s plans for our island’s growth do not include this location, its equipment or its coal or biomass fuel.


Equipment at Hilo Coast Power Plant

1. Major equipment is 35 years old (Babcock & Wilcox Boiler & 836 KW Diesel Generator – serial BW23523) .
2. The equipment limits the efficiency of the proposed operation to producing steam.
3. With a significantly higher investment in newer equipment, a gasification biomass plant could generate comparable level of electricity with 1/3 the biomass fuel, thus conserving the same resources to last 3 times longer.

CONCLUSION: The existing structure and its equipment are an artifact from our island’s history. The fact of the location’s current zoning, SMA use permit, and equipment simply make this an opportunity for a quick profit for mainland investors, and not a long-term investment in Hawaii county.


Biomass as Fuel

1. We understand that 15,000 acres are already under contract for a modern 30MW plant in Honokaa.
2. We believe that there is no other source of biomass on the island that would power a 24 MW plant in Pepeekeo at the rate of 225,000 tons of biomass per year.
3. It takes 8 years to grow a eucalyptus tree to harvest stage, and we believe there are insufficient acres under production to sustain a second biomass plant, especially one as inefficient as a steam boiler type.
4. Should our farm land be turned into biomass production, this will impact our island’s food supply and create a vulnerability/security issue.
5. Other states have had operational problems with biomass plants. Lack of fuel supplies, citizen opposition, missed deadlines, higher costs, etc.

CONCLUSION: Biomass is not an immediately renewable fuel on our island, especially when considering tree waste.



Traffic

1. Although traffic considerations were not a significant issue in the original permit, we believe this will be a major issue; given the representation made about the number of trucks per day, see below.
2. Private roads connect the plant to the highway and to the public shoreline trails and the cost of road maintenance is shared among 3 subdivisions (105 lot owners). They believe the cost to maintain the roads should be shared by the county due to the volume of public traffic accessing the trails.


Permit Holder, Ethanol Research Hawaii, LLC

1. Not Local Investors: also known as Hu Honua LLC (Dan KenKnight, Manager), MMA Renewable Ventures of Oahu a subsidiary of MuniMae (Municipal Mortgage & Equity LLC), publicly traded mainland firm focused on trading in energy tax credits. As a publicly traded firm financing this venture, profits will go to the parent company located on the mainland and not reinvested here on our island.
2. Lawsuits filed in Jan 2008 against parent company MuniMae threaten its planned investment in HuHonua: Stock price has dropped from $9.19 to $2.05 per share in the past 9 months and dividends have been suspended.
3. Track Record on Oahu: Oahu Ethanol planned in 2004 to begin ethanol production in the second quarter of 2006, but that was delayed until the first quarter of 2007. As of mid-2008 there is no operating plant.
4. Mr. KenKnight promised the public in 2004 that he would build an ethanol plant in 4 years ago, revised the completion date to 2007, yet is not completed in mid-2008. We believe he will not build a plant because it is less expensive to import ethanol from South America.
5. Economic Viability: their business model invests as little as possible on our island, refurbishes the existing old equipment, passing tax credits to mainland investors, and promises jobs and community facilities to Pepeekeo residents.
6. Unrealistic Goal: MECO buys 12 MW electricity (saving 44,700 barrels oil/year) from HC&S PUUNENE SUGAR MILL in Maui. The Pepeekeo plant can generate 24 MW of electricity and HuHonua says they will save 225,000 bbl oil per year. They have not explained how it is possible that a plant which is two times the size of Maui plant, can save nearly 5 times the number of barrels per year.
7. Impossible Goal: By converting Btu’s produced by a 24 MW plant, only 124,000 bbl per year can be saved.
8. Insignificant Impact: Assuming that 124,000 bbl could be saved, the impact only represents 0.16% of our state’s oil consumption (56 million bbl per year statewide).


Site Assessment
EIS

1. The prior operator submitted plans to cease operations and was obligated to make certain modifications to the land.
2. Has an inspection been done to certify the condition of the area since the closure of the plant in 2004? Has a full EIS ever been done on this property?
3. Who is responsible?
4. Has any documentation been drafted concerning the current condition of the area?


Air Permit, Solid Waste Permit

1. The community organized an effort in 2005 -2006 to defeat the re-opening of the plant, meeting with Mayor Harry Kim, Warren Lee, President of Helco, and petitioning the DOH.
2. The State Department of Health denied a permit to Pacific Rim Energy Partners in 2006.
3. We are pursuing a similar organized effort against the current group seeking any permits or permit modifications to use this location.


Unintended Consequences

1. What are the implications of the water and fertilizer needed to grow biomass instead of food and forage crops?
2. What will be the impact on agriculture should invasive plant and insect species spread from the trucking activity?

Recommendations

1. Repeal SMA permit #221.
2. Re-zone the area.
3. Restrict noise levels to residential for daytime and nights.
4. County take ownership of the roads to the plant and to the shoreline access points.
5. Enhance the shoreline trails with picnic tables, public restrooms, trash cans, and safety barriers. This is a beautiful area which more people should enjoy and the county has a responsibility to make the access
safe and without placing an unnecessary burden on the property owners to maintain.

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

Thanks to Patti & Bob Ferrazi for pointing us to greenhouse gas emissions. Check out the box on the right "Coal Plant Lawsuits" and you'll see some interesting rulings about coal plants in other states requiring a permit for co2 emissions. Does anyone know about Hawaii's plans to regulate these emissions? Can someone research?

Waiver for Competitive Bidding - PUC

Stacey Djou, chief legal counsel, Public Utilities Commission, told me today that on July 16, 2008 Helco and Heco filed a waiver to suspend competitive bidding on the HuHonua Bioenergy Project. The PUC cannot disclose anything about the filing, and will rule on it once they receive a Statement of Position from the Consumer Advocate, with in the Department of Consumer Avocacy, 808-586-2800

link

Meeting with Mayor Kim and Planning Director Yuen

On July 31, 2008 the meeting was attended by Bridget Rapoza, Virginia Alderson, and Elaine Munro. Richard Ha had to cancel at the last moment but told us he was in agreement with our petition.

Chris Yuen explained that he met with a consultant from HuHonua several weeks ago and stated to him that HuHonua must complete an EIS and a new application for the SMA use. Further, the information about their meeting was forwarded to Councilman Dominic Yagong's office.

Both the mayor and planning director assured us that a public hearing would be the process that the planning commission would follow in evaluating the group's plans to re-open the plant.

Use what we have

Published: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:08 AM HST
After reading the article, "HELCO aims for renewable island energy" in the July 14 Tribune-Herald, I became more aware of the energy problem facing Big Island residents. Awareness is the first step in dealing with any problem. I am concerned about creating electrical energy by cutting and burning trees. This could jeopardize the air quality of the island. We have already experienced a drastic change in our air due to volcanic changes this past year.

There are cleaner resources producing energy for HELCO to purchase. It seems to me that HELCO's greatest resource is its customers. HELCO had the foresight to offer incentives to homeowners who use solar energy to produce hot water. Take it to the next step and offer customer incentives for solar electric installation, and buy back surplus energy. Pacific Gas & Electric in California does this and it is well supported by the people. HELCO could work toward a cleaner solution which would also benefit its customers -- a win/win solution.

The state of Hawaii has backed the use of solar energy with tax incentives. Let's use the clean resources we have -- sun, wind and water. They are here in abundance and they are clean.

*
Karen Kuester

Keaau

Coastal Zone Management

I spoke with Doug Tom, program director for the state's Coastal Zone Management Program. He says he's introducing legislation that would tighten SMA rules, because many abuses have been caused because of the broad definition of "development". However, he says that the counties are opposed to the state's "interfering" in their activities. He says that the proposed legislation is aimed at stopping speculation, for instance, where something has not been used continuously and becomes a vehicle for speculators.

He recommends we look into the Ocean Resources Plan and determine any inconsistencies with it and the power plant situation.

Air Permit Status

Permit 0229-02-C is a Covered Source Permit, issued by the Clean Air Branch, State Dept of Health, transferred from Hilo Coast Power Company to Pacific Rim Energy Partners LLC on 7/19/2005; again transferred on 11/30/2007 to Ethanol Research Hawaii, LLC; and again transferred on 10/17/08 to Hu Honua LLC. The "covered source" is the Babcock & Wilcox steam boiler and diesel generator. The fuel covered is coal and diesel.

Any modification to the fuel type, including wood chips, requires a modification process with the Clean Air Branch. The process is a technical review against the federal and state emission guidelines. It is not a review of the merits of the project.

Process requires a 30 day public notice period for public comment. Notices are published in Honolulu and east and west Hawaii papers. There is no modification in process at this time. This information was given to me by Nolan Harrari, engineer supervisor on 7/29/08.

Obtaining a copy of the existing permit is underway.

Why we never need to build another polluting power plant

Coal? Natural gas? Nuke? We can wipe them all off the drawing board by using current energy more efficiently. Are you listening, Washington?

By Joseph Romm

Jul. 28, 2008 | Suppose I paid you for every pound of pollution you generated and punished you for every pound you reduced. You would probably spend most of your time trying to figure out how to generate more pollution. And suppose that if you generated enough pollution, I had to pay you to build a new plant, no matter what the cost, and no matter how much cheaper it might be to not pollute in the first place.

Well, that's pretty much how we have run the U.S. electric grid for nearly a century. The more electricity a utility sells, the more money it makes. If it's able to boost electricity demand enough, the utility is allowed to build a new power plant with a guaranteed profit. The only way a typical utility can lose money is if demand drops. So the last thing most utilities want to do is seriously push strategies that save energy, strategies that do not pollute in the first place.

America is the Saudi Arabia of energy waste. A 2007 report from the international consulting firm McKinsey and Co. found that improving energy efficiency in buildings, appliances and factories could offset almost all of the projected demand for electricity in 2030 and largely negate the need for new coal-fired power plants. McKinsey estimates that one-third of the U.S. greenhouse gas reductions by 2030 could come from electricity efficiency and be achieved at negative marginal costs. In short, the cost of the efficient equipment would quickly pay for itself in energy savings.

While a few states have energy-efficiency strategies, none matches what California has done. In the past three decades, electricity consumption per capita grew 60 percent in the rest of the nation, while it stayed flat in high-tech, fast-growing California. If all Americans had the same per capita electricity demand as Californians currently do, we would cut electricity consumption 40 percent. If the entire nation had California's much cleaner electric grid, we would cut total U.S. global-warming pollution by more than a quarter without raising American electric bills. And if all of America adopted the same energy-efficiency policies that California is now putting in place, the country would never have to build another polluting power plant.

How did California do it? In part, a smart California Energy Commission has promoted strong building standards and the aggressive deployment of energy-efficient technologies and strategies -- and has done so with support of both Democratic and Republican leadership over three decades.

Many of the strategies are obvious: better insulation, energy-efficient lighting, heating and cooling. But some of the strategies were unexpected. The state found that the average residential air duct leaked 20 to 30 percent of the heated and cooled air it carried. It then required leakage rates below 6 percent, and every seventh new house is inspected. The state found that in outdoor lighting for parking lots and streets, about 15 percent of the light was directed up, illuminating nothing but the sky. The state required new outdoor lighting to cut that to below 6 percent. Flat roofs on commercial buildings must be white, which reflects the sunlight and keeps the buildings cooler, reducing air-conditioning energy demands. The state subsidized high-efficiency LED traffic lights for cities that lacked the money, ultimately converting the entire state.

Significantly, California adopted regulations so that utility company profits are not tied to how much electricity they sell. This is called "decoupling." It also allowed utilities to take a share of any energy savings they help consumers and businesses achieve. The bottom line is that California utilities can make money when their customers save money. That puts energy-efficiency investments on the same competitive playing field as generation from new power plants.

The cost of efficiency programs has averaged 2 to 3 cents per avoided kilowatt hour, which is about one-fifth the cost of electricity generated from new nuclear, coal and natural gas-fired plants. And, of course, energy efficiency does not require new power lines and does not generate greenhouse-gas emissions or long-lived radioactive waste. While California is far more efficient than the rest of the country, the state still thinks that with an even more aggressive effort, it can achieve as much additional electricity savings by 2020 as it has in the past three decades.

Serious energy efficiency is not a one-shot resource, where you pick the low-hanging fruit and you're done. In fact, the fruit grows back. The efficiency resource never gets exhausted because technology keeps improving and knowledge spreads to more people.

The best corporate example is Dow Chemical's Louisiana division, consisting of more than 20 plants. In 1982, the division's energy manager, Ken Nelson, began a yearly contest to identify and fund energy-saving projects. Some of the projects were simple, like more efficient compressors and motors, or better insulation for steam lines. Some involved more sophisticated thermodynamic "pinch" analysis, which allows engineers to figure out where to place heat exchangers to capture heat emitted in one part of a chemical process and transfer it to a different part of the process where heat is needed. His success was nothing short of astonishing.

The first year of the contest had 27 winners requiring a total capital investment of $1.7 million with an average annual return on investment of 173 percent. Many at Dow felt that there couldn't be others with such high returns. The skeptics were wrong. The 1983 contest had 32 winners requiring a total capital investment of $2.2 million and a 340 percent return -- a savings of $7.5 million in the first year and every year after that. Even as fuel prices declined in the mid-1980s, the savings kept growing. The average return to the 1989 contest was the highest ever, an astounding 470 percent in 1989 -- a payback of 11 weeks that saved the company $37 million a year.

You might think that after 10 years, and nearly 700 projects, the 2,000 Dow employees would be tapped out of ideas. Yet the contest in 1991, 1992 and 1993 each had in excess of 120 winners with an average return on investment of 300 percent. Total savings to Dow from just those projects exceeded $75 million a year.

When I worked at the Department of Energy in the mid-1990s, we hired Nelson, who had recently retired from Dow, to run a "return on investment" contest to reduce DOE's pollution. As they were at Dow, many DOE employees were skeptical such opportunities existed. Yet the first two contest rounds identified and funded 18 projects that cost $4.6 million and provided the department $10 million in savings every year, while avoiding more than 100 tons of low-level radioactive pollution and other kinds of waste. The DOE's regional operating officers ended up funding 260 projects costing $20 million that have been estimated to achieve annual savings of $90 million a year.

Economic models greatly overestimate the cost of carbon mitigation because economists simply don't believe that the economy has lots of high-return energy-efficiency opportunities. In their theory, the economy is always operating near efficiency. Reality is very different than economic models.

In my five years at DOE, working with companies to develop and deploy efficient and renewable technologies, and then in nearly a decade of consulting with companies in the private sector, I never saw a building or factory that couldn't cut electricity consumption or greenhouse-gas emissions 25 percent to 50 percent with rapid payback (under four years). My 1999 book, "Cool Companies," detailed some 100 case studies of companies that have done just that and made a great deal of money.

There are many reasons that most companies don't match what the best companies do. Until recently, saving energy has been a low priority for most of them. Most utilities, as noted, have little or no incentive to help companies save energy. Funding for government programs to help companies adopt energy-saving strategies has been cut under the Bush administration.

Government has a very important role in enabling energy savings. The office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy has lots of (underfunded) programs that deliver savings every day. Consider, for instance, Chrysler's St. Louis complex, which recently received a DOE Save Energy Now energy assessment. Using DOE software, Chrysler identified a variety of energy-saving measures and saved the company $627,000 a year in energy costs -- for an upfront implementation cost of only $125,000.

The key point for policymakers now is that we have more than two decades of experience with successful state and federal energy-efficiency programs. We know what works. As California energy commissioner Art Rosenfeld -- a former DOE colleague and the godfather of energy efficiency -- put it in a recent conversation, "A lot of technology and strategies that are tried and true in California are waiting to be adopted by the rest of country."

So how do we overcome barriers and tap our nearly limitless efficiency resource? Obviously, the first thing would be to get all the states to embrace smarter utility regulations, which is a core strategy of Barack Obama's plan to reduce greenhouse gases. But how does the federal government get all the states to embrace efficiency?

We should establish a federal matching program to co-fund state-based efficiency programs, with a special incentive to encourage states without an efficiency program to start one. This was a key recommendation of the End-Use Efficiency Working Group to the Energy Future Coalition, a bipartisan effort to develop consensus policies, in which I participated. The first year should offer $1 billion in federal matching funds, then $2 billion, $3 billion, $4 billion, and finally stabilizing at $5 billion. This will give every state time to change their regulations and establish a learning curve for energy efficiency.

This program would cost $15 billion in the first five years, but save several times that amount in lower energy bills and reduced pollution. Since the next president will put in place a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases, the revenues from auctioning the emissions permits can ultimately be used to pay for the program.

We should restore a federal focus on the energy-intensive industries, such as pulp and paper, steel, aluminum, petroleum refining and chemicals. They account for 80 percent of energy consumed by U.S. manufacturers and 90 percent of the hazardous waste. They represent the best chance for increasing efficiency while cutting pollution. Many are major emitters of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide. A 1993 analysis for the DOE found that a 10 to 20 percent reduction in waste by American industry would generate a cumulative increase of $2 trillion in the gross domestic product from 1996 to 2010. By 2010, the improvements would be generating 2 million new jobs.

For these reasons, in the 1990s, the Energy Department began forming partnerships with energy-intensive industries to develop clean technologies. We worked with scientists and engineers to identify areas of joint research into technologies that would simultaneously save energy, reduce pollution and increase productivity. The Bush administration slashed funding for this program by 50 percent -- and keeps trying to shut it down entirely.

Indeed, conservatives in general have cut the funding or shut down entirely almost all federal programs aimed at deploying energy-efficient technologies. Conservatives simply have a blind spot when it comes to energy efficiency and conservation, seeing them as inconsequential "Jimmy Carter programs."

I recently testified at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on nuclear power and spoke about how alternative technologies, particularly energy efficiency, were a much better bet for the country. Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio) said this was "poppycock," and then asked all the pro-nuclear witnesses to address the question, "If nuclear power is so uncompetitive, why are so many utilities building reactors?"

Voinovich apparently has forgotten about the massive subsidies he himself voted to give the nuclear industry in 2005. He seems to be unaware that states like Florida allow utilities to sharply raise electric rates years in advance of a nuclear plant delivering even a single electron to customers. If you could do that same forward-pricing with energy efficiency, we would never need to build another polluting plant.

Although he is a senior member of the Senate and a powerful voice on energy and climate issues, Voinovich doesn't seem to know the first thing about the electricity business; namely, that a great many utilities have a huge profit incentive to build even the most expensive power plants, since they can pass all costs on to consumers while retaining a guaranteed profit. But they have a strong disincentive from investing in much less costly efforts to reduce electricity demand, since that would eat into their profits.

The next president must challenge the public service commission in every state to allow utilities to receive the same return on energy efficiency as they are allowed to receive on generation. That single step could lead the country the furthest in solving our ever-worsening climate and energy problems.


-- By Joseph Romm

Lawsuits filed against parent company of HuHonua

Numerous lawsuits have been filed in 2008 claiming that Municipal Mortgage & Equity LLC management intentionally misrepresented the value of the company's assets and its profits. As a result, the stock price was artificially inflated and subsequently declined sharply. Named in the lawsuit are most of the major corporate officers, including the audit committee.

Also known as MuniMae, the company was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange in February 2008, former trading symbol: MMAB. Shares can be purchased via the "pink sheets". Daily Record, The (Baltimore, MD), May 06, 2008

According to a press release dated January 31, 2008, the complaint charges that MMA and certain of its present and former officers, directors, and control persons violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements pertaining to MMA's business prospects, financial condition, and financial performance.

full story here

Lawsuits have the disadvantage of taking corporate officers' time away from running the business in order to defend themselves; they take corporate funds to defend them; they lower market confidence in the company and make it harder to obtain business credit and loans for operations; and they can result in the sale of corporate assets if penalized.

Tradewinds blow ill

Published: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9:44 AM HST
I'd like to respond to the article on HELCO and renewable energy in the July 14 Tribune-Herald.

First, Tradewinds Forest Products proposes to put their power plant not on the "outskirts of Ookala," as stated in the article, but right in the middle of our residential community, literally across the street from the majority of homes.

Next, when HELCO talks about "renewable energy," the public is led to believe the energy is "clean and green." But biomass energy is NOT clean and green, it's a smokestack industry with toxic emissions that fall under state and federal government regulation.

*
In the article, Mr. Bryan states that he "can't build without an air permit in hand," and that "it's on its way to us, and we expect to see something here shortly."

Tradewinds' draft permit is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency due to a request that I filed in February asking for an objection. My request is based on the expert analysis of several environmental and mechanical engineers that our community group, Protect Ookala, hired to review the draft permit. Without exception, every single expert found serious flaws in the emissions data. They also had concerns about the air control technology and weak monitoring system that Tradewinds has proposed to use.

The EPA does not rush its decisions, so regardless of what Mr. Bryan says, his air permit is a long way from resolution.

I'd also like to respond to Mr. Bryan's statements about the supply of fuel for the three proposed biomass plants. In the article, he states that the other two ventures "won't be competing for our fuel, because our fuel is under contract."

But the only contract Tradewinds currently has for fuel is a seven-year-old state lease license at Waiakea Timber Management Area, some 40 miles south of Ookala. That contract, which is nearing its end, states that the veneer and power plant construction must be completed by this July 1, 2008, with a drop-dead completion date of January 2009.

Given that Tradewinds doesn't even have its first permit, the Waiakea timber should be put out to bid again in 2009. So in reality, there is no secured fuel source for Tradewinds.

Mr. Bryan has continually given out misinformation about his project to the press, to our elected officials, and to the public, but our community will continue to hold him accountable. HELCO and the Public Utility Commission should do the same.

Scott Enright

Ookala
962-6071

Community Noise Control

Title 11, Chapter 46, Hawaii Administrative Rules

Noise limits are set by the zoning classification, i.e., agricultural has a much higher decibel level limit than residential, which has a lower limit during nighttime.

Noise Control Branch of the state DOH has an inspector for the site who will come with equipment and take measurements from the property of the complaining party, and not from the plant premises.

Who are Dan KenKnight, Ethanol Research Hawaii, and Hu Honua?

Ethanol Research Hawaii LLC Corporation Filings History

Oahu Ethanol's state filings

Hu Honua Bioenergy LLC state filings

Political donations

More political donations

Far from being green, ethanol harms environment and wallets!

Realizing ethanol's energy potential takes effort

Dan Kenknight does not meet target

Ethanol's promise for self-reliance not quite there

Sugar-based ethanol is unprofitable in the long-run, and Abercrombie rejects

State's ethanol plans fall short

Construct ion notice of ethanol facilities

No guarantee that any ethanol sold in Hawaii is made in Hawaii

Ethanol tax breaks are a bonanza for some

Kauai ethanol plant is planned for 2008
Gay & Robinson says sugar conversion will save 230 jobs
STORY SUMMARY »

KAUMAKANI, Kauai » After years of delay, the county's first sugar-to-ethanol plant might be coming to Kauai after all.

art
As early as 1998, Gay & Robinson of Kauai began announcing plans to turn their sugar crop into ethanol. But delays in the permitting process and securing funding have kept the project from breaking ground.

The plant, which would be built in the heart of Gay & Robinson's sugar fields in Kaumakani, could open as early as next year, said Gay & Robinson Treasurer Clem Lum.

The plan would save 230 jobs in the sugar plantation and add dozens more in the next year, Lum added.

STAR-BULLETIN

FULL STORY »

By Tom Finnegan / tfinnegan@starbulletin.com

KAUMAKANI, Kauai » An investment of $80 million announced yesterday will likely turn Kauai's west side once again into the tassle-filled land of sugar it has been for more than 100 years.

This time, however, sugar plantation officials believe the same crop that their grandparents cultivated will provide a renewable energy source for their grandchildren.

Gay & Robinson announced yesterday that it has secured funding to build both a 12 million-gallon-per-year ethanol plant and a biomass boiler and turbine to produce energy for the plant and for the local electricity company.

ETHANOL POINTS
The project: Now in the permitting stage, it is set to open in mid- to late 2008.
Production: 12 million gallons of ethanol made from sugar juice and molasses
Secondary plans: A biomass boiler and turbine facility, both to power the ethanol plant and to sell to a local utility company
Partners: Pacific West and Gay & Robinson
The sugar-to-ethanol plant would be the first in the United States, producing more than a quarter of what is currently needed in Hawaii as a gasoline additive, officials with the company said yesterday.

Plans have been in the works to build the ethanol plant for nearly a decade, but delays with permitting and funding have pushed back the project.

With the announcement of the deal, however, the plant is once again scheduled to open next year, Gay & Robinson Treasurer Clem Lum said yesterday.

"Money has always been an issue," he said.

Not anymore.

The $39 million ethanol plant, to be built in Kaumakani, the heart of the Garden Isle's sugar fields, is expected to use sugar juice and molasses as raw material. It has already received a permit from the state for air pollution, and is in the permitting process at the county level.

It is scheduled to produce 12 million gallons of ethanol per year. Current state law requires that gasoline be blended with 10 percent ethanol so as to reduce the state's dependence on foreign oil. But the state has had to import ethanol without a local supplier.

The rest of the funding announced yesterday, Lum said, will go to cultivating more sugar cane lands, building the biomass plant and hiring more staff.

Future business plans call for additional stages of energy production, including biodiesel production, a methane recovery system, the processing of municipal solid waste, hydropower, the conversion of biomass into liquid fuels and solar energy production, company officials said yesterday.

"We're excited to partner with Pacific West Energy and begin transforming G&R from a commodity raw sugar producer to a provider of renewable and alternative energy for Kauai and Hawaii," said Alan Kennett, president of Gay & Robinson, in a news release.

Pacific West Energy LLC, a Vancouver, Wash.-based firm, worked to secure the funding for the project and will partner with Gay & Robinson to form Gay & Robinson Ag-Energy LLC. A management team with Pacific West with experience in developing renewable-energy projects worldwide will come to Kauai to help develop the project, officials with both companies said.

© Honolulu Star-Bulletin -- http://starbulletin.com