According to their new website:
"Hu Honua filed an air permit application with the Hawaii Department of Health in August. Hu Honua also filed an application to modify its Special Management Area (SMA) permit in November. The process for approving both permits will provide ample opportunity for public input and comment, including public hearings. Water and solid waste permits will be filed in the near future.
Showing posts with label Hu Honua. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hu Honua. Show all posts
Oct 31, 2009
Hu Honua back online with same lie...
ABOUT US Page:
"It [Hu Honua] is co-owned by ERH, a local firm that has been pursuing renewable projects in Hawaii for the past five years, and MMA Renewable Ventures, LLC, a leading producer of energy from renewable sources.
FAQ PAGE:
"MMA Renewable Ventures is a renewable energy company and co-owner of Hu Honua Bioenergy, LLC."
FACT: That has not been true since April 2009, when parent company MMA sold off the assets of MMA Renewables to Fotowatio, except for the power plant in Pepeekeo. See link to MMA's 10K report 4/2009.
The site has been off-line, so why come back online with the same old lie?
"It [Hu Honua] is co-owned by ERH, a local firm that has been pursuing renewable projects in Hawaii for the past five years, and MMA Renewable Ventures, LLC, a leading producer of energy from renewable sources.
FAQ PAGE:
"MMA Renewable Ventures is a renewable energy company and co-owner of Hu Honua Bioenergy, LLC."
FACT: That has not been true since April 2009, when parent company MMA sold off the assets of MMA Renewables to Fotowatio, except for the power plant in Pepeekeo. See link to MMA's 10K report 4/2009.
The site has been off-line, so why come back online with the same old lie?
Public Notification
Clean Air Branch has a web link to their public notices:
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/admin/health/environmental/air/cab/notices/notices_index.html
Here's an excerpt of the Application for the Covered Source Permit (clean air permit):
VII. After receipt of a complete application, the Director, in writing, shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application within eighteen months, except as provided in HAR §11-60.1-88 and (A) and (B) below.
A. Upon program approval, within nine months for an application containing an early reduction demonstration pursuant to section 112(i)(5) of the Clean Air Act.
B. Within twelve months for a new covered source or significant modification subject to the requirements of subchapter 7.
VIII. A Covered Source Permit application for a new covered source or a significant modification shall be approved only if the Director determines that the construction or operation of the new covered source or significant modification will be in compliance with all applicable requirements.
IX. The Director shall provide for public notice, including the method by which a public hearing can be requested, and an opportunity for public comment on the draft Covered Source Permit in accordance with HAR §11-60.1-99. Each notification shall also identify the intent to operate at various locations, and the estimated number of location changes for the proposed term of the Temporary Covered Source Permit.
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/admin/health/environmental/air/cab/notices/notices_index.html
Here's an excerpt of the Application for the Covered Source Permit (clean air permit):
VII. After receipt of a complete application, the Director, in writing, shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application within eighteen months, except as provided in HAR §11-60.1-88 and (A) and (B) below.
A. Upon program approval, within nine months for an application containing an early reduction demonstration pursuant to section 112(i)(5) of the Clean Air Act.
B. Within twelve months for a new covered source or significant modification subject to the requirements of subchapter 7.
VIII. A Covered Source Permit application for a new covered source or a significant modification shall be approved only if the Director determines that the construction or operation of the new covered source or significant modification will be in compliance with all applicable requirements.
IX. The Director shall provide for public notice, including the method by which a public hearing can be requested, and an opportunity for public comment on the draft Covered Source Permit in accordance with HAR §11-60.1-99. Each notification shall also identify the intent to operate at various locations, and the estimated number of location changes for the proposed term of the Temporary Covered Source Permit.
Triggers for EIS - Office of Environmental Quality Control
§343-5 Applicability and requirements. (a) Except as otherwise provided, an environmental assessment shall be required for actions that:
(1) Propose the use of state or county lands or the use of state or county funds, other than funds to be used for feasibility or planning studies for possible future programs or projects that the agency has not approved, adopted, or funded, or funds to be used for the acquisition of unimproved real property; provided that the agency shall consider environmental factors and available alternatives in its feasibility or planning studies; provided further that an environmental assessment for proposed uses under section [205-2(d)(10)] or [205-4.5(a)(13)] shall only be required pursuant to section 205-5(b);
(2) Propose any use within any land classified as a conservation district by the state land use commission under chapter 205;
(3) Propose any use within a shoreline area as defined in section 205A-41;
(4) Propose any use within any historic site as designated in the National Register or Hawaii Register, as provided for in the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Public Law 89-665, or chapter 6E;
(5) Propose any use within the Waikiki area of Oahu, the boundaries of which are delineated in the land use ordinance as amended, establishing the "Waikiki Special District";
(6) Propose any amendments to existing county general plans where the amendment would result in designations other than agriculture, conservation, or preservation, except actions proposing any new county general plan or amendments to any existing county general plan initiated by a county;
(7) Propose any reclassification of any land classified as a conservation district by the state land use commission under chapter 205;
(8) Propose the construction of new or the expansion or modification of existing helicopter facilities within the State, that by way of their activities, may affect:
(A) Any land classified as a conservation district by the state land use commission under chapter 205;
(B) A shoreline area as defined in section 205A-41; or
(C) Any historic site as designated in the National Register or Hawaii Register, as provided for in the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Public Law 89-665, or chapter 6E; or until the statewide historic places inventory is completed, any historic site that is found by a field reconnaissance of the area affected by the helicopter facility and is under consideration for placement on the National Register or the Hawaii Register of Historic Places; and
(9) Propose any:
(A) Wastewater treatment unit, except an individual wastewater system or a wastewater treatment unit serving fewer than fifty single-family dwellings or the equivalent;
(B) Waste-to-energy facility;
(C) Landfill;
(D) Oil refinery; or
(E) Power-generating facility.
(b) Whenever an agency proposes an action in subsection (a), other than feasibility or planning studies for possible future programs or projects that the agency has not approved, adopted, or funded, or other than the use of state or county funds for the acquisition of unimproved real property that is not a specific type of action declared exempt under section 343-6, the agency shall prepare an environmental assessment for such action at the earliest practicable time to determine whether an environmental impact statement shall be required.
(1) For environmental assessments for which a finding of no significant impact is anticipated:
(A) A draft environmental assessment shall be made available for public review and comment for a period of thirty days;
(B) The office shall inform the public of the availability of the draft environmental assessment for public review and comment pursuant to section 343-3;
(C) The agency shall respond in writing to comments received during the review and prepare a final environmental assessment to determine whether an environmental impact statement shall be required;
(D) A statement shall be required if the agency finds that the proposed action may have a significant effect on the environment; and
(E) The agency shall file notice of such determination with the office. When a conflict of interest may exist because the proposing agency and the agency making the determination are the same, the office may review the agency's determination, consult the agency, and advise the agency of potential conflicts, to comply with this section. The office shall publish the final determination for the public's information pursuant to section 343-3.
The draft and final statements, if required, shall be prepared by the agency and submitted to the office. The draft statement shall be made available for public review and comment through the office for a period of forty-five days. The office shall inform the public of the availability of the draft statement for public review and comment pursuant to section 343-3. The agency shall respond in writing to comments received during the review and prepare a final statement.
The office, when requested by the agency, may make a recommendation as to the acceptability of the final statement.
(2) The final authority to accept a final statement shall rest with:
(A) The governor, or the governor's authorized representative, whenever an action proposes the use of state lands or the use of state funds, or whenever a state agency proposes an action within the categories in subsection (a); or
(B) The mayor, or the mayor's authorized representative, of the respective county whenever an action proposes only the use of county lands or county funds.
Acceptance of a required final statement shall be a condition precedent to implementation of the proposed action. Upon acceptance or nonacceptance of the final statement, the governor or mayor, or the governor's or mayor's authorized representative, shall file notice of such determination with the office. The office, in turn, shall publish the determination of acceptance or nonacceptance pursuant to section 343-3.
(c) Whenever an applicant proposes an action specified by subsection (a) that requires approval of an agency and that is not a specific type of action declared exempt under section 343-6, the agency initially receiving and agreeing to process the request for approval shall prepare an environmental assessment of the proposed action at the earliest practicable time to determine whether an environmental impact statement shall be required; provided that, for an action that proposes the establishment of a renewable energy facility, a draft environmental impact statement shall be prepared at the earliest practicable time. The final approving agency for the request for approval is not required to be the accepting authority.
For environmental assessments for which a finding of no significant impact is anticipated:
(1) A draft environmental assessment shall be made available for public review and comment for a period of thirty days;
(2) The office shall inform the public of the availability of the draft environmental assessment for public review and comment pursuant to section 343-3; and
(3) The applicant shall respond in writing to comments received during the review, and the agency shall prepare a final environmental assessment to determine whether an environmental impact statement shall be required. A statement shall be required if the agency finds that the proposed action may have a significant effect on the environment. The agency shall file notice of the agency's determination with the office, which, in turn, shall publish the agency's determination for the public's information pursuant to section 343-3.
The draft and final statements, if required, shall be prepared by the applicant, who shall file these statements with the office.
The draft statement shall be made available for public review and comment through the office for a period of forty-five days. The office shall inform the public of the availability of the draft statement for public review and comment pursuant to section 343-3.
The applicant shall respond in writing to comments received during the review and prepare a final statement. The office, when requested by the applicant or agency, may make a recommendation as to the acceptability of the final statement.
The authority to accept a final statement shall rest with the agency initially receiving and agreeing to process the request for approval. The final decision-making body or approving agency for the request for approval is not required to be the accepting authority. The planning department for the county in which the proposed action will occur shall be a permissible accepting authority for the final statement.
(1) Propose the use of state or county lands or the use of state or county funds, other than funds to be used for feasibility or planning studies for possible future programs or projects that the agency has not approved, adopted, or funded, or funds to be used for the acquisition of unimproved real property; provided that the agency shall consider environmental factors and available alternatives in its feasibility or planning studies; provided further that an environmental assessment for proposed uses under section [205-2(d)(10)] or [205-4.5(a)(13)] shall only be required pursuant to section 205-5(b);
(2) Propose any use within any land classified as a conservation district by the state land use commission under chapter 205;
(3) Propose any use within a shoreline area as defined in section 205A-41;
(4) Propose any use within any historic site as designated in the National Register or Hawaii Register, as provided for in the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Public Law 89-665, or chapter 6E;
(5) Propose any use within the Waikiki area of Oahu, the boundaries of which are delineated in the land use ordinance as amended, establishing the "Waikiki Special District";
(6) Propose any amendments to existing county general plans where the amendment would result in designations other than agriculture, conservation, or preservation, except actions proposing any new county general plan or amendments to any existing county general plan initiated by a county;
(7) Propose any reclassification of any land classified as a conservation district by the state land use commission under chapter 205;
(8) Propose the construction of new or the expansion or modification of existing helicopter facilities within the State, that by way of their activities, may affect:
(A) Any land classified as a conservation district by the state land use commission under chapter 205;
(B) A shoreline area as defined in section 205A-41; or
(C) Any historic site as designated in the National Register or Hawaii Register, as provided for in the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Public Law 89-665, or chapter 6E; or until the statewide historic places inventory is completed, any historic site that is found by a field reconnaissance of the area affected by the helicopter facility and is under consideration for placement on the National Register or the Hawaii Register of Historic Places; and
(9) Propose any:
(A) Wastewater treatment unit, except an individual wastewater system or a wastewater treatment unit serving fewer than fifty single-family dwellings or the equivalent;
(B) Waste-to-energy facility;
(C) Landfill;
(D) Oil refinery; or
(E) Power-generating facility.
(b) Whenever an agency proposes an action in subsection (a), other than feasibility or planning studies for possible future programs or projects that the agency has not approved, adopted, or funded, or other than the use of state or county funds for the acquisition of unimproved real property that is not a specific type of action declared exempt under section 343-6, the agency shall prepare an environmental assessment for such action at the earliest practicable time to determine whether an environmental impact statement shall be required.
(1) For environmental assessments for which a finding of no significant impact is anticipated:
(A) A draft environmental assessment shall be made available for public review and comment for a period of thirty days;
(B) The office shall inform the public of the availability of the draft environmental assessment for public review and comment pursuant to section 343-3;
(C) The agency shall respond in writing to comments received during the review and prepare a final environmental assessment to determine whether an environmental impact statement shall be required;
(D) A statement shall be required if the agency finds that the proposed action may have a significant effect on the environment; and
(E) The agency shall file notice of such determination with the office. When a conflict of interest may exist because the proposing agency and the agency making the determination are the same, the office may review the agency's determination, consult the agency, and advise the agency of potential conflicts, to comply with this section. The office shall publish the final determination for the public's information pursuant to section 343-3.
The draft and final statements, if required, shall be prepared by the agency and submitted to the office. The draft statement shall be made available for public review and comment through the office for a period of forty-five days. The office shall inform the public of the availability of the draft statement for public review and comment pursuant to section 343-3. The agency shall respond in writing to comments received during the review and prepare a final statement.
The office, when requested by the agency, may make a recommendation as to the acceptability of the final statement.
(2) The final authority to accept a final statement shall rest with:
(A) The governor, or the governor's authorized representative, whenever an action proposes the use of state lands or the use of state funds, or whenever a state agency proposes an action within the categories in subsection (a); or
(B) The mayor, or the mayor's authorized representative, of the respective county whenever an action proposes only the use of county lands or county funds.
Acceptance of a required final statement shall be a condition precedent to implementation of the proposed action. Upon acceptance or nonacceptance of the final statement, the governor or mayor, or the governor's or mayor's authorized representative, shall file notice of such determination with the office. The office, in turn, shall publish the determination of acceptance or nonacceptance pursuant to section 343-3.
(c) Whenever an applicant proposes an action specified by subsection (a) that requires approval of an agency and that is not a specific type of action declared exempt under section 343-6, the agency initially receiving and agreeing to process the request for approval shall prepare an environmental assessment of the proposed action at the earliest practicable time to determine whether an environmental impact statement shall be required; provided that, for an action that proposes the establishment of a renewable energy facility, a draft environmental impact statement shall be prepared at the earliest practicable time. The final approving agency for the request for approval is not required to be the accepting authority.
For environmental assessments for which a finding of no significant impact is anticipated:
(1) A draft environmental assessment shall be made available for public review and comment for a period of thirty days;
(2) The office shall inform the public of the availability of the draft environmental assessment for public review and comment pursuant to section 343-3; and
(3) The applicant shall respond in writing to comments received during the review, and the agency shall prepare a final environmental assessment to determine whether an environmental impact statement shall be required. A statement shall be required if the agency finds that the proposed action may have a significant effect on the environment. The agency shall file notice of the agency's determination with the office, which, in turn, shall publish the agency's determination for the public's information pursuant to section 343-3.
The draft and final statements, if required, shall be prepared by the applicant, who shall file these statements with the office.
The draft statement shall be made available for public review and comment through the office for a period of forty-five days. The office shall inform the public of the availability of the draft statement for public review and comment pursuant to section 343-3.
The applicant shall respond in writing to comments received during the review and prepare a final statement. The office, when requested by the applicant or agency, may make a recommendation as to the acceptability of the final statement.
The authority to accept a final statement shall rest with the agency initially receiving and agreeing to process the request for approval. The final decision-making body or approving agency for the request for approval is not required to be the accepting authority. The planning department for the county in which the proposed action will occur shall be a permissible accepting authority for the final statement.
Oct 10, 2009
Hu Honua Goes Off-Line
Hu Honua's web site is down. The page you get asks the owner of the site to contact the hosting service. This message is generally given to site owners who haven't paid their bills. Link on the title of this post.
Jun 13, 2009
Hu Honua Bioenergy LLC completed a rate term sheet with Helco for approximately 22MW firm capacity. The purpose of this letter is to present facts about their parent company and why this information is important for any financial review of Hu Honua. I also present reasons to doubt Hu Honua’s past and current financial representations.
Executive Summary.
During 2008 and 2009, Hu Honua Bioenergy LLC and MMA Renewable Venture LLC executives and advisors met on numerous occasions with Pepeekeo residents, Helco representatives, County Planning representatives, local ILWU, Senator Akaka, Representative Hirono, Representative Neil Abercrombie, other government officials, and the media.
Representations were made by these executives that were not true at the time, and had never been true. These claims were made to persuade the listener of their ability to complete the renovation, refurbishing, operation, and licensing of a biomass power plant located in Pepeekeo, Hawaii.
There should be significant doubt about Hu Honua’s ability to perform on any agreement, since it no longer belongs to MMA Renewable Ventures, but remains an asset of the parent company, MuniMae, whose reorganization plan is to own and manage portfolios of tax-exempt and market rate bonds and loans. The ownership and operation of a biomass power plant is inconsistent with their plan. Further, the employees with the abilities to plan, manage, and operate renewable power plants are now employed by Fotowatio Renewable Ventures.
Discussion and Facts
Organization prior to May 2009:
Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC , or MuniMae, (parent), traded on the New York Stock Exchange: MMAB
MMA Renewable Ventures (wholly owned division)
Hu Honua Bioenergy, LLC (division is majority shareholder)
Ethanol Research Hawaii, LLC (partner of Hu Honua)
Current organization after sale of assets:
Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC (parent), traded over the counter: MMAB.PK
Hu Honua Bioenergy, LLC (including biomass plant)
Ethanol Research Hawaii, LLC (inactive)
Enclosed are excerpts of Municipal Mortgage & Equity’s (aka MuniMae) current 10-K submissions to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a 210 page document, which can be downloaded and/or printed in full at the SEC website, http://www.sec.gov.
Status of the company 2008 and 2009 were bad years for raising money, even for renewable energy projects. The company slowed down their investment in renewable energy projects as early as Q1 2008.
April 2009, 10-K report, page 11:
“During 2008 and the first part of 2009, we have been unable to form new funds, and in good part our business activities have been limited to providing multifamily loans in our business of originating mortgage loans for sale to, and servicing loans for, government sponsored enterprises and agencies, and new solar projects in our renewable ventures business (although even this aspect of our business was substantially reduced during 2008).”
“We had remained actively engaged through the first quarter of 2008 in our renewable energy finance and development activities. However, beginning in the second quarter of 2008, we reduced the pace at which we were investing in renewable energy projects, partly because of a slowdown in our ability to obtain funds for investments, and partly because of investor uncertainty caused by Congress’ delay in finalizing legislation extending tax credits that were scheduled to reduce significantly at the end of 2008 (but now have been extended). “ Page 16
April 2009, 10-K report, page F-89
“The Company is currently managing its businesses in a manner to conserve capital and reduce costs and has been working with all of its lenders to restructure as many of its creditor agreements as possible in order to satisfy its ongoing liquidity needs and obtain forbearance agreements… In the event management’s plans are not successful, the Company could consider seeking relief through a bankruptcy filing. …If we complete the sales of our Agency Lending business and our Tax Credit Equity business, our only significant remaining activities will be owning and managing portfolios of tax-exempt and market rate bonds and loans. This will enable us to reduce significantly the number of people we employ (in addition to the personnel of the businesses we sell who become employees of the buyers or whose services are no longer required because we do not operate those businesses).“ page 11
Dog & Pony Show. Executives of MMA Renewable Ventures visit Hawaii to discuss the strength of their company, and their ability to make a significant investment in the community.
July 9, 2008 Hu Honua and MMA Renewable Ventures meet with Pepeekeo residents:
I asked them about the 46% drop in MuniMae stock price and the recent class action lawsuits accusing management of financial fraud and they said they had no comment about internal legal issues of their parent company. Noticeably, they did not say they were unaware of the issues. Since MuniMae was the largest stockholder of both entities, it seems that these executives would be interested in the drop in the value of their personal assets, i.e., MuniMae stock. Further, it is inconceivable that the parent company would not be issuing statements to its employees explaining their position on the reason for the stock decline as well as the 10 class action lawsuits. Being silent with employees could only jeopardize morale, productivity, and possibly employee turnover.
August 8, 2008 Hawaii Tribune-Herald “Power Facility: No Coal”, interviews Tim Lasocki, (then Vice President for Business Development MMA Renewable Ventures, and now Executive Vice President Hu Honua). “Hu 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.” Surely Mr. Lasocki was aware that MuniMae was cutting back on their renewable investments as was recounted above in the paragraph entitled “Status of the company”.
Oct 2008 Hu Honua’s PowerPoint presentation to Pepeekeo Community:
• “Parent company MuniMae has $19 billion in assets under management”
• “$3.5 billion in new financing annually”
I find this entirely false, because the company did not have any unencumbered assets at that time, and the company was finding it difficult to raise money and slowed down its investment in renewable projects in Q1 as cited above under “Status of the company”. Further, there were no financial reports made by the company for 2008 and numerous lawsuits filed in 2008 cast doubt on any financial information.
“All of our businesses require significant access to borrowed funds and as such we have almost no assets that are unencumbered at December 31, 2008... Because we were not able to deliver financial statements in a timely manner, most of our debt that is not part of a bond securitization transaction was in default, and most of our lenders could have required us to repay the indebtedness.” Page 25, April 2009 10-K report
Hu Honua executives continue to represent that they the parent company will provide the funds for their project, however, the parent company has not filed any required financial reports to the SEC for 2007, 2008, or Q1 2009. They restated their prior SEC submissions for 2004, 2005, and 2006. So how can a reasonable person believe Hu Honua’s representations of their financial capacity to perform on this project? Further, How could these executives believe that they could pull off this project when their parent company was slowing down its investment in renewable projects and was finding it difficult to raise money?
“This Report does not contain quarterly information for years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 nor do we plan to provide this information through subsequent Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings. Preparing and providing this information would be costly, would be only marginally beneficial to our investors and would serve only to delay the filing of this Report as well as future filings which will provide our 2007 and 2008 financial position and results of operations.” Page 5.
Investor Beware. The renewable energy projects that MMA Renewable Ventures LLC funded, built, and operated before being sold to Fotowatio followed a similar approach. Money was raised from institutional investors and set aside in designated funds, such as Solar I, Solar II, Solar III, and Solar IV. Each fund was formed as a general partnership with limited partnership shares. Each fund was used to build and operate a specific project facility. Over $200Million was raised in 2007 and 2008 for these committed solar projects. MMA Renewable was sold for $19.7 million earlier this year, a fraction of what those projects cost. What happens to the investors holding limited partnership interests? Well, MuniMae committed to guarantee its obligations, but, that seems a hollow promise given their current condition. So, what sort of institutional investor will invest in more renewable energy projects, given the sorry experience of MMA Renewables? The risk seems too great in today’s market.
Conclusion. I do not believe any representations made by Hu Honua Bioenergy LLC or former executives of MMA Renewable Ventures. I do not believe that they can raise $40 million or even $80 million (as told to one government official). I hope that any financial information presented to Helco, PUC, EPA, or DOH, be given a full audit by Hawaii State auditors. I hope that a rigorous risk analysis be conducted on any agreement with this company. It seems likely that MuniMae will sell Hu Honua, so the State auditors should look any exposure, should that occur. Any new owner should provide audited financials as part of the due diligence process.
Executive Summary.
During 2008 and 2009, Hu Honua Bioenergy LLC and MMA Renewable Venture LLC executives and advisors met on numerous occasions with Pepeekeo residents, Helco representatives, County Planning representatives, local ILWU, Senator Akaka, Representative Hirono, Representative Neil Abercrombie, other government officials, and the media.
Representations were made by these executives that were not true at the time, and had never been true. These claims were made to persuade the listener of their ability to complete the renovation, refurbishing, operation, and licensing of a biomass power plant located in Pepeekeo, Hawaii.
There should be significant doubt about Hu Honua’s ability to perform on any agreement, since it no longer belongs to MMA Renewable Ventures, but remains an asset of the parent company, MuniMae, whose reorganization plan is to own and manage portfolios of tax-exempt and market rate bonds and loans. The ownership and operation of a biomass power plant is inconsistent with their plan. Further, the employees with the abilities to plan, manage, and operate renewable power plants are now employed by Fotowatio Renewable Ventures.
Discussion and Facts
Organization prior to May 2009:
Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC , or MuniMae, (parent), traded on the New York Stock Exchange: MMAB
MMA Renewable Ventures (wholly owned division)
Hu Honua Bioenergy, LLC (division is majority shareholder)
Ethanol Research Hawaii, LLC (partner of Hu Honua)
Current organization after sale of assets:
Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC (parent), traded over the counter: MMAB.PK
Hu Honua Bioenergy, LLC (including biomass plant)
Ethanol Research Hawaii, LLC (inactive)
Enclosed are excerpts of Municipal Mortgage & Equity’s (aka MuniMae) current 10-K submissions to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a 210 page document, which can be downloaded and/or printed in full at the SEC website, http://www.sec.gov.
Status of the company 2008 and 2009 were bad years for raising money, even for renewable energy projects. The company slowed down their investment in renewable energy projects as early as Q1 2008.
April 2009, 10-K report, page 11:
“During 2008 and the first part of 2009, we have been unable to form new funds, and in good part our business activities have been limited to providing multifamily loans in our business of originating mortgage loans for sale to, and servicing loans for, government sponsored enterprises and agencies, and new solar projects in our renewable ventures business (although even this aspect of our business was substantially reduced during 2008).”
“We had remained actively engaged through the first quarter of 2008 in our renewable energy finance and development activities. However, beginning in the second quarter of 2008, we reduced the pace at which we were investing in renewable energy projects, partly because of a slowdown in our ability to obtain funds for investments, and partly because of investor uncertainty caused by Congress’ delay in finalizing legislation extending tax credits that were scheduled to reduce significantly at the end of 2008 (but now have been extended). “ Page 16
April 2009, 10-K report, page F-89
“The Company is currently managing its businesses in a manner to conserve capital and reduce costs and has been working with all of its lenders to restructure as many of its creditor agreements as possible in order to satisfy its ongoing liquidity needs and obtain forbearance agreements… In the event management’s plans are not successful, the Company could consider seeking relief through a bankruptcy filing. …If we complete the sales of our Agency Lending business and our Tax Credit Equity business, our only significant remaining activities will be owning and managing portfolios of tax-exempt and market rate bonds and loans. This will enable us to reduce significantly the number of people we employ (in addition to the personnel of the businesses we sell who become employees of the buyers or whose services are no longer required because we do not operate those businesses).“ page 11
Dog & Pony Show. Executives of MMA Renewable Ventures visit Hawaii to discuss the strength of their company, and their ability to make a significant investment in the community.
July 9, 2008 Hu Honua and MMA Renewable Ventures meet with Pepeekeo residents:
I asked them about the 46% drop in MuniMae stock price and the recent class action lawsuits accusing management of financial fraud and they said they had no comment about internal legal issues of their parent company. Noticeably, they did not say they were unaware of the issues. Since MuniMae was the largest stockholder of both entities, it seems that these executives would be interested in the drop in the value of their personal assets, i.e., MuniMae stock. Further, it is inconceivable that the parent company would not be issuing statements to its employees explaining their position on the reason for the stock decline as well as the 10 class action lawsuits. Being silent with employees could only jeopardize morale, productivity, and possibly employee turnover.
August 8, 2008 Hawaii Tribune-Herald “Power Facility: No Coal”, interviews Tim Lasocki, (then Vice President for Business Development MMA Renewable Ventures, and now Executive Vice President Hu Honua). “Hu 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.” Surely Mr. Lasocki was aware that MuniMae was cutting back on their renewable investments as was recounted above in the paragraph entitled “Status of the company”.
Oct 2008 Hu Honua’s PowerPoint presentation to Pepeekeo Community:
• “Parent company MuniMae has $19 billion in assets under management”
• “$3.5 billion in new financing annually”
I find this entirely false, because the company did not have any unencumbered assets at that time, and the company was finding it difficult to raise money and slowed down its investment in renewable projects in Q1 as cited above under “Status of the company”. Further, there were no financial reports made by the company for 2008 and numerous lawsuits filed in 2008 cast doubt on any financial information.
“All of our businesses require significant access to borrowed funds and as such we have almost no assets that are unencumbered at December 31, 2008... Because we were not able to deliver financial statements in a timely manner, most of our debt that is not part of a bond securitization transaction was in default, and most of our lenders could have required us to repay the indebtedness.” Page 25, April 2009 10-K report
Hu Honua executives continue to represent that they the parent company will provide the funds for their project, however, the parent company has not filed any required financial reports to the SEC for 2007, 2008, or Q1 2009. They restated their prior SEC submissions for 2004, 2005, and 2006. So how can a reasonable person believe Hu Honua’s representations of their financial capacity to perform on this project? Further, How could these executives believe that they could pull off this project when their parent company was slowing down its investment in renewable projects and was finding it difficult to raise money?
“This Report does not contain quarterly information for years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 nor do we plan to provide this information through subsequent Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings. Preparing and providing this information would be costly, would be only marginally beneficial to our investors and would serve only to delay the filing of this Report as well as future filings which will provide our 2007 and 2008 financial position and results of operations.” Page 5.
Investor Beware. The renewable energy projects that MMA Renewable Ventures LLC funded, built, and operated before being sold to Fotowatio followed a similar approach. Money was raised from institutional investors and set aside in designated funds, such as Solar I, Solar II, Solar III, and Solar IV. Each fund was formed as a general partnership with limited partnership shares. Each fund was used to build and operate a specific project facility. Over $200Million was raised in 2007 and 2008 for these committed solar projects. MMA Renewable was sold for $19.7 million earlier this year, a fraction of what those projects cost. What happens to the investors holding limited partnership interests? Well, MuniMae committed to guarantee its obligations, but, that seems a hollow promise given their current condition. So, what sort of institutional investor will invest in more renewable energy projects, given the sorry experience of MMA Renewables? The risk seems too great in today’s market.
Conclusion. I do not believe any representations made by Hu Honua Bioenergy LLC or former executives of MMA Renewable Ventures. I do not believe that they can raise $40 million or even $80 million (as told to one government official). I hope that any financial information presented to Helco, PUC, EPA, or DOH, be given a full audit by Hawaii State auditors. I hope that a rigorous risk analysis be conducted on any agreement with this company. It seems likely that MuniMae will sell Hu Honua, so the State auditors should look any exposure, should that occur. Any new owner should provide audited financials as part of the due diligence process.
Aug 12, 2008
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.
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.
Aug 1, 2008
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
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.
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.
Jul 29, 2008
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.
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.
Jul 26, 2008
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.
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.
Jul 20, 2008
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
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
Why Choose the Cheapest Upgrade Method?
HuHonua says that they will spend $24 Million dollars to upgrade the existing plant equipment and create electricity from burning biomass via steam power. We know that this method is 20% efficient and that two other biomass plant methods are 2-3 TIMES more efficient (namely, cofiring and gasification). [see the blog post titled US Dept Energy on Biomass Power Systems.] Efficiency is very important because it means that less biomass is needed to produce greater amounts of electricity. Efficiency is also important because it means that less greenhouse gases are produced with higher levels of efficiency.
Does it make good sense to burn more Hamakua trees, burn more truck fuel in transporting those trees, just to create more greenhouse gases and only produce one third the power that could be made with better equipment and a bigger capital investment?
Does it make good sense to burn more Hamakua trees, burn more truck fuel in transporting those trees, just to create more greenhouse gases and only produce one third the power that could be made with better equipment and a bigger capital investment?
Fact or Fiction or More to the Story?
HECO's web site shows that they are buying 14 MW electricity from HC&S PUUNENE SUGAR MILL in Maui which they say saves 44,700 barrels per year.
Now, the Pepeekeo plant can generate 24 MW of electricity. HuHonua says they will save 225,000 bbl oil per year.
How reasonable is it for a 24 MW plant which is 71% larger than a 14 MW plant to save 403% more bbl oil???
Now, the Pepeekeo plant can generate 24 MW of electricity. HuHonua says they will save 225,000 bbl oil per year.
How reasonable is it for a 24 MW plant which is 71% larger than a 14 MW plant to save 403% more bbl oil???
Jul 16, 2008
SMA Permit # 221
Permit restricts fuel to coal or its equivalent. So an amendment to the permit will be needed.
Jul 12, 2008
Herald-Tribune July 12, 2008
Pepeekeo electricity plant aims to reopen
by Cameron Johnson
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer
Published: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:24 AM HST
Neighbors worry about pollution, noise and traffic
Clean-up and renovation of Pepeekeo's former sugar plantation power plant began Monday by a company planning to make electricity by burning wood and plant material.
Hu Honua Bioenergy wants to reconfigure and reopen the 24-megawatt plant by December 2010, a move some neighbors fear will decrease air quality and increase traffic.
It will take three trucks an hour coming from the Paauilo area to fuel the Pepeekeo plant with biomass.
*
"Because of the emissions, this is not just a Hamakua Coast issue -- the fallout goes to Hilo," said power plant neighbor Bobbye St. Ambrogio. "Hilo's going to be stuck between the vog and the power plant smoke."
Hu Honua made a presentation Wednesday night to members of the Pepeekeo Homeowner's Association. One woman asked them to consider the power plant's impact on generations to come.
"It's different now (in Pepeekeo)," the woman said. "It's not a compatible use. This is a quiet, wonderful little community."
Dan KenKnight, director of Hu Honua, said everyone who moved into the area should have known a power plant is located at the bottom of Sugar Mill Road.
"We're not bringing something back that was never anticipated," KenKnight said. "It stopped in 2004 and the facility has been there. It's not fair to say the community just grew up around it."
Hu Honua wants to burn nut shells, wood waste and invasive plant material as well as agricultural and landscaping waste, KenKnight said
All of which depends on whether Hu Honua can strike a deal to sell its electricity to Hawaiia Electric Light Co.
The last time smoke passed through the stack was 2004, before Hilo Coast Power Co. shut the plant down because Hawaii Electric Light Co. decided not to renew its power-purchasing contract.
In 2005, new owners Pacific Rim Energy Partners sought federal Environmental Protection Agency permits to burn biomass. That effort ended when Oahu-based Ethanol Research Hawaii purchased the plant, now co-owned by ERH and MMA Renewable Ventures, KenKnight said.
MMA Renewable Ventures, headquartered in Baltimore, is wholly owned by Municipal Mortgage and Equity LLC also of Baltimore.
Once operational, the Pepeekeo plant will power 18,000 homes and account for between 7 percent and 10 percent of the Big Island's power, said Mark Higgins, Hu Honua's vice president of finance.
By burning unusable materials from the eucalyptus timber industry and other green waste, Hu Honua claims it will save HELCO from burning 225,000 to 250,000 barrels of oil a year.
For the next 12 to 18 months specialists will inspect the equipment to see what needs to be replaced or updated, said engineer Tim Formaz.
Several Pepeekeo residents expressed concern that coal would be burned once the island's biofuel supply has been exhausted.
The goal is to burn 100 percent biomass, said Tim Lasocki, Hu Honua's vice president of bioenergy business development. Coal will be on-site in case of natural disasters. If the supply of biomass is disrupted for more than a few days, he said, the plant would burn coal.
"If we're burning coal, we're losing money," Lasocki said.
The biomass plant will put 10 to 20 times less particulate matter into the air than a coal-burning plant, KenKnight said. The goal, he said, is to burn a clean, sustainable fuel.
Hu Honua can't take advantage of federal tax credits if coal is the primary fuel, Higgins said.
The plant still has a permit, secured by Hilo Coast Power in 2004, allowing it to burn coal and fuel oil, said Nolan Hirai, supervisor of the engineering section of the Clean Air Branch of the state Department of Health.
"It's still valid," Hirai said. "If someone wanted to operate under the current permit without any changes, that would be legal."
To burn biomass, however, Hu Honua needs an amendment to the plant's EPA permit, Hirai said. That could take anywhere from "three months to a year, and sometimes longer, depending on how complete the application is."
The state will look at the air quality assessments, review the plant's operations and consider public comment, Hirai said. The emission limits will be assessed.
"It's hard to compare the different fuels (biomass and coal) until you know the combustion process and the air pollution controls you have," Hirai said.
Wednesday's meeting with Pepeekeo residents in the Kulaimano Community Center was the third Hu Honua representatives have had with residents.
"Every time we meet with them, they rework their presentation to meet our questions," St. Ambrogio said. (Hu Honua is) just using us. When they do go before HELCO, they will have carefully crafted their message and will have all the right answers. They are sucking out the information from the community."
Not all at the meeting were unhappy with Hu Honua's plan. One man asked representatives if they will be hiring past plant workers. KenKnight said the company will hire only area workers and area contractors.
Some asked what the company will do to compensate for the additional traffic and emissions. Some proposed that Hu Honua build a bike trail or a playground.
KenKnight said 50,000 tons of green waste are going into the Hilo landfill every year. Hu Honua is not looking for grasses to burn, but the "more woody stuff."
One banana farmer at the meeting had concerns with biomass being trucked to Pepeekeo because it could bring in invasive pests. Also, he was concerned with the dust that could end up in his catchment water.
One woman was concerned about the health risks of raising four children within sight of the stacks.
Burning wood represents an 80 percent decrease in the output of sulfur dioxides over coal, Lasocki said.
St. Ambrogio wondered if any Hu Honua representatives would like to live across the street from her.
"Would you build a million dollar house on the ocean right across from me and let your children breathe that air?" St. Ambrogio said.
E-mail Cameron Johnson at cjohnson@hawaiitribune--herald.com.
by Cameron Johnson
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer
Published: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:24 AM HST
Neighbors worry about pollution, noise and traffic
Clean-up and renovation of Pepeekeo's former sugar plantation power plant began Monday by a company planning to make electricity by burning wood and plant material.
Hu Honua Bioenergy wants to reconfigure and reopen the 24-megawatt plant by December 2010, a move some neighbors fear will decrease air quality and increase traffic.
It will take three trucks an hour coming from the Paauilo area to fuel the Pepeekeo plant with biomass.
*
"Because of the emissions, this is not just a Hamakua Coast issue -- the fallout goes to Hilo," said power plant neighbor Bobbye St. Ambrogio. "Hilo's going to be stuck between the vog and the power plant smoke."
Hu Honua made a presentation Wednesday night to members of the Pepeekeo Homeowner's Association. One woman asked them to consider the power plant's impact on generations to come.
"It's different now (in Pepeekeo)," the woman said. "It's not a compatible use. This is a quiet, wonderful little community."
Dan KenKnight, director of Hu Honua, said everyone who moved into the area should have known a power plant is located at the bottom of Sugar Mill Road.
"We're not bringing something back that was never anticipated," KenKnight said. "It stopped in 2004 and the facility has been there. It's not fair to say the community just grew up around it."
Hu Honua wants to burn nut shells, wood waste and invasive plant material as well as agricultural and landscaping waste, KenKnight said
All of which depends on whether Hu Honua can strike a deal to sell its electricity to Hawaiia Electric Light Co.
The last time smoke passed through the stack was 2004, before Hilo Coast Power Co. shut the plant down because Hawaii Electric Light Co. decided not to renew its power-purchasing contract.
In 2005, new owners Pacific Rim Energy Partners sought federal Environmental Protection Agency permits to burn biomass. That effort ended when Oahu-based Ethanol Research Hawaii purchased the plant, now co-owned by ERH and MMA Renewable Ventures, KenKnight said.
MMA Renewable Ventures, headquartered in Baltimore, is wholly owned by Municipal Mortgage and Equity LLC also of Baltimore.
Once operational, the Pepeekeo plant will power 18,000 homes and account for between 7 percent and 10 percent of the Big Island's power, said Mark Higgins, Hu Honua's vice president of finance.
By burning unusable materials from the eucalyptus timber industry and other green waste, Hu Honua claims it will save HELCO from burning 225,000 to 250,000 barrels of oil a year.
For the next 12 to 18 months specialists will inspect the equipment to see what needs to be replaced or updated, said engineer Tim Formaz.
Several Pepeekeo residents expressed concern that coal would be burned once the island's biofuel supply has been exhausted.
The goal is to burn 100 percent biomass, said Tim Lasocki, Hu Honua's vice president of bioenergy business development. Coal will be on-site in case of natural disasters. If the supply of biomass is disrupted for more than a few days, he said, the plant would burn coal.
"If we're burning coal, we're losing money," Lasocki said.
The biomass plant will put 10 to 20 times less particulate matter into the air than a coal-burning plant, KenKnight said. The goal, he said, is to burn a clean, sustainable fuel.
Hu Honua can't take advantage of federal tax credits if coal is the primary fuel, Higgins said.
The plant still has a permit, secured by Hilo Coast Power in 2004, allowing it to burn coal and fuel oil, said Nolan Hirai, supervisor of the engineering section of the Clean Air Branch of the state Department of Health.
"It's still valid," Hirai said. "If someone wanted to operate under the current permit without any changes, that would be legal."
To burn biomass, however, Hu Honua needs an amendment to the plant's EPA permit, Hirai said. That could take anywhere from "three months to a year, and sometimes longer, depending on how complete the application is."
The state will look at the air quality assessments, review the plant's operations and consider public comment, Hirai said. The emission limits will be assessed.
"It's hard to compare the different fuels (biomass and coal) until you know the combustion process and the air pollution controls you have," Hirai said.
Wednesday's meeting with Pepeekeo residents in the Kulaimano Community Center was the third Hu Honua representatives have had with residents.
"Every time we meet with them, they rework their presentation to meet our questions," St. Ambrogio said. (Hu Honua is) just using us. When they do go before HELCO, they will have carefully crafted their message and will have all the right answers. They are sucking out the information from the community."
Not all at the meeting were unhappy with Hu Honua's plan. One man asked representatives if they will be hiring past plant workers. KenKnight said the company will hire only area workers and area contractors.
Some asked what the company will do to compensate for the additional traffic and emissions. Some proposed that Hu Honua build a bike trail or a playground.
KenKnight said 50,000 tons of green waste are going into the Hilo landfill every year. Hu Honua is not looking for grasses to burn, but the "more woody stuff."
One banana farmer at the meeting had concerns with biomass being trucked to Pepeekeo because it could bring in invasive pests. Also, he was concerned with the dust that could end up in his catchment water.
One woman was concerned about the health risks of raising four children within sight of the stacks.
Burning wood represents an 80 percent decrease in the output of sulfur dioxides over coal, Lasocki said.
St. Ambrogio wondered if any Hu Honua representatives would like to live across the street from her.
"Would you build a million dollar house on the ocean right across from me and let your children breathe that air?" St. Ambrogio said.
E-mail Cameron Johnson at cjohnson@hawaiitribune--herald.com.
Jul 11, 2008
