2013-01-10 Windward Transcript PD Rule 12

Home

Funding a health impact study is not expressly covered by Rule 12, and the procedures outlined in Rule 12 relate to the handling of claims for compensation…suggestions for a comprehensive health study is not yet a subject which is addressed by Rule l2.” The Director’s letter proposes amending Rule 12 in keeping with Condition 49 “to allow impact mitigation projects to be funded by the Geothermal Asset Fund and set up the process for the council or designated agency to set up a priority list of such projects.” The Director says the amendments should give the Commission authority to address a health study’s methodology, to hire a consultant to make a model for the study and criteria for the expertise of an investigator, to have the Planning Department solicit bids and select qualified individuals to conduct the study, and to authorize the Commission to review the draft health study and require supplementation of the study’s content and methodology. That proposal is not acceptable for several reasons. First, there is an obvious overlap of purposes between the County’s contract with Dr. Adler and the proposed new rules. Second, the recommendation exceeds the authority allowed by the Planning Commission by the County Code: i.e., to administer payments from the asset fund. The recommendations made by the Director purport to authorize the Commission to take a hand in the details of conducting and reporting the results of a health study. No law gives that right to the Commission. Without legal authority (and especially without scientific competence) it should not be attempted. With all due respect, the recommendation plainly exceeds the reasonable competence of this Commission. In the County’s $50,000 contract with Dr. Adler there is a plan to recommend priorities and preferred methodologies for a community health study. Dr. Adler’s website says his contract on health risks associated with geothermal energy production will result in (1) a list of public health questions pertinent to the issues, (2) a reliable inventory of existing studies pertinent to the issues, and (3) “recommendations about the priorities and preferred methodologies for future scientific and monitoring studies that may be required….” The Director’s proposal for the Commission to address methodology and hire a consultant to develop a model for the study directly overlaps the results required by Adler’s existing contract. Third, it appears the Geothermal Asst Fund rules in fact have been applied to claims for relocation that were paid from the geothermal relocation and community benefits fund, but have not been applied to the Geothermal Asset Fund. Hawai‘i County Charter 10-12 provides for the establishment of special funds, and there are two such geothermal-styled funds: County Code Chapter 2, Article 35 creates the Geothermal Asset Fund from PGV payments required by GRP-2. Code Chapter 2, Article 36 creates the geothermal relocation and community benefits fund from geothermal royalties received by the County. Code 2-182 authorizes the planning director to make rules for the administering relocation claims from the Article 36 Royalty Fund, but it seems no such rules were made. Instead Rule 12 relating to the Geothermal Asset Fund defined in Article 35 appears to have been used for claims for relocation paid by Article 36 fund. 4 EXHIBIT D