Since 2009, customers of the Hawaiian Electric companies have been charged a Public Benefits Fee. Calculated as a percentage of usage, the fee pays a contractor to the state Public Utilities Commission who manages a program that is intended to push the state onto the path of renewable energy and conservation in a more aggressive manner than the utilities themselves might do. Since its inception, the program, called Hawai`i Energy, has been run by Leidos Engineering (formerly known as SAIC), and, among other things, it subsidizes the purchase of solar water heaters, gives out compact fluorescent light bulbs, and helps businesses and homeowners with energy audits.
But did the 2013 Legislature intend, when it enacted what became Act 211, to abolish the Public Benefits Fee (PBF) as soon as the Green Infrastructure Fee (GIF) was imposed?
Sally Kaye, the sole member of the public who intervened in PUC proceedings that led to establishment of the Green Energy Market Securitization (GEMS) fund, thinks so.
In the PUC’s 2014 docket on the GIF, Kaye argued that the authorizing statute did not anticipate that ratepayers would have to support both the Green Infrastructure Fee and the Public Benefits Fee.
“The clear language of the statute is disjunctive,” she wrote in a filing to the PUC. “[I]t states, ‘the public benefits fee, or the green infrastructure fee,’ not ‘and’ the GI fee.” (That language appears in the “definitions” part of Section 269-161, Hawai`i Revised Statutes.)
In addition, the statute defines a green infrastructure charge as “the on-bill charges for the use and services of the loan program, including the repayment of loans made under the loan program” authorized by the PUC. Kaye argued that this constituted “evidence that the Legislature intended that those accessing the GEMS program’s products or services would pay back the costs and charges of such products and/or services,” but that it did not support a conclusion “that the Legislature intended that the entire universe of ratepayers, including those that have already installed green infrastructure, should be responsible for underwriting the costs for future systems for up to 20 years.”
In that same vein, she noted that the statute gives the state Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism no authority “to impose a fixed charge on ALL customers expressly for the purpose of underwriting the debt service incurred by only some customers.”
Despite Kaye’s concerns, the PUC approved the GEMS bond float of $150 million pretty much as DBEDT proposed it, along with an irrevocable fixed fee, which, unlike the PBF, is not based on usage and which is to be imposed on each Hawaiian Electric customer for at least another 20 years. As for the Public Benefits Fee, it continues to appear, in slightly reduced form, on customers’ bills, right along with the new (since December) Green Infrastructure Fee.
When the PUC approved the GIF, it also called for corresponding reductions in the amounts collected for the Public Benefits Fee. In a filing with the commission last November by Hawaiian Electric, the utility estimated that GIF collections would amount to roughly $7.06 million for the first seven months (December 2014 through June 2015).
To offset this, the utility said, the estimated PBF surcharge for an average residence using 600 kWh per month would drop by $1.54 – to $4.55.
A Shrinking PBF Fund
The public benefits fund now stands to see a substantial reduction in its resources. Until this year, funds raised through the PBF were around $40 million annually. Now it will be getting around $25 million.
When asked what the impact of the GIF will be on Hawai`i Energy, Mark Glick of DBEDT’s Energy Office did not seem too concerned. “It will be a reduction,” he said, “but if you look at their annual report, they’ve had difficulty spending what they collect.”
Had any thought been given to reducing the PBF? he was asked.
“It could be that they’re collecting too much, or it could be there isn’t enough innovative thinking about how to use that fund to support efficiency and renewable energy,” he said.
Hawai`i Energy was invited to comment on the impact of the reduction on its operations. It declined to do so.
— P.T.