REP AWESC 002 05/16/2012 2010-2012

Home

AWESC-2 Page 3 May 16, 2012 Mr. Onishi stated that he contacted the Department of Health about the geothermal issue. He was told that the Department of Health does have monitors out there that they check on and that gas levels will vary depending on temperature and wind. He also asked if it was possible to purchase devices called "Jerome" that could be given to the Fire Department to check gas levels. Mr. Ikeda asked Ms. Leithead-Todd how much money is in the geothermal relocation fund. She replied that there is $3.7 million, but only $2,155,000 is available because the rest is encumbered for other expenditures, some of which are ongoing like the lease for the Pahoa Council Office and security for Pohoiki and the Pahoa Community Center. If geothermal funds can no longer pay for these expenses, then the Council will have to look for funding in the General Fund to continue these services. Mr. Ikeda also asked how much does PGV contribute into the relocation fund each year. Ms. Leithead-Todd responded that about $500,000 is contributed every year, depending on PGV's revenues. The contribution is ten percent of the royalties paid to the State. He then asked about the geothermal asset fund. She stated that the asset fund gets $50,000 per year and is governed by the geothermal permit. It has limited purposes and the Council doesn't have the authority to amend the conditions of the permit. The asset fund is intended for relocation, mitigation and damages caused by PGV. The royalty fund is separate from the asset fund. Mr. Ikeda then asked if the asset fund can be used to purchase some of the safety devices. Ms. Leithead-Todd said she would have to double-check, but it's possible that some of it could be used for relocation and health and safety expenses. Mr. Ikeda stated that he understands that relocating residents is a top priority, but he does not want "community benefits" to be taken out. Once the funds start building up again, he wants future Councils to have the option of using the funds for the community. Mr. Yagong responded that at the time the "community benefits" was added, there were no applicants for relocation because of the condition that your house had to have been built by 1989. This bill now opens it up to allow anyone within one mile of the facility to apply for relocation. Mr. Ikeda also feels that the buffer zone should be expanded, based on what he heard from testifiers. Mr. Yagong responded that we should take care of those closest to the facility first. Once everyone is taken care of, then we can look at expanding the buffer zone. Mr. Hoffmann indicated that he would like to see some community benefits left in. He then called forward Puna Geothermal Plant Manager Mike Kaleikini to ask him why there was no environmental impact statement (EIS) done. Mr. Kaleikini replied that they did one in the late 80's-early 90's. Ms. Ford asked Mr. Kaleikini if magma came up in any wells and if their permit has any conditions regarding magma coming up the wells. He responded that at one time magma did come up a well about 20 feet, but it self-plugged. He doesn't think there is anything in the permit regarding that, but he would double-check. Ms. Ford commented that there should be a law, perhaps in this bill or another bill, which would require realtors to disclose that a property is within so many miles of a geothermal plant before selling it. Ms. Smart expressed her concerns with taking away geothermal funds to provide infrastructure when Puna has serious traffic problems that could have an adverse affect on an evacuation. Mr. Yagong replied that first we need to come up with a comprehensive plan and then we can determine the costs to deal with public safety.