HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0269.004 2022-2024 P/aounci
{ie.b. 16,3-23
From: Bill Bugbee
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2023 11:51 AM
To: Council Testimony
Cc: Inaba, Holeka
Subject: Reso 163-23 Testimony Submission o n
Hawar i County Council w
Public Comment Submission re: Reso 163-23 ,
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 a-
Dear Council members,
I'm writing on behalf.of myself and other concerned residents of Hawaii County in our collective
opposition to Resolution 163-23.
The ill-advised formation of a "Pacific Hydrogen Alliance" (PHA) will surely consist of disparate
partnership interests to include the City of Lancaster, CA, (Namie Town) of energy infamous
Fukushima, Japan, and Hawaii Island -- a highly geographically-separate partnership, but from
economic and partnership management perspectives.
Reso 163 calls for a blanket endorsement (without County due diligence) for the implementation of
unqualified project(s), lacking both in risk and benefit analysis, towards the unspecified development of
hydrogen energy project(s) on Hawaii Island. The promise of such a resolution is a so-called hydrogen
society (whatever that means).
To be clear, hydrogen is not an energy source, but little more than a costly and insufficient energy
storage vehicle, and without proven and economical commercial applications at this time. And time is
critically important in the state's and the world's race to address climate change impacts now
underway.
Perhaps someday Hydrogen may fulfill the promises its promoters are selling certain County officials,
but for now, and into the foreseeable future, Hydrogen does not belong on the County's energy
agenda, and certainly as outlined in this current proposition. Questions well beyond commercial
practicality are left unanswered in this Reso, beyond the Mayor's unjustified enthusiasm. Support, and
push for the approval and ratification of Resolution 163-23 by this Council, there is little evidence
publicly available to support the passage of Reco 163.
The backers of this resolution have further failed to make a case for why the resolution is needed, who
benefits, and what will be the cost to taxpayers, ratepayers, and our island environment in the
1 Comm.No ``�/l4•
_ 11
Ref.To:
Ref.Date MN/ - . 2823``
diversion of statewide resources away from proven and cost-effective climate mitigation clean energy
options efforts now underway.
Ask yourself,just how such a proposal benefits the broader public interest, beyond the insider
stakeholders promoting this resolution? And even if such a proposal is necessary for the County's
advancement of its present path off fossil fuels, while addressing rising climate costs.
The resolution represents little more than a blank check endorsement by Council without undergoing
due diligence, validation, or impact-benefit justification. The Reso is full of unknown implications for
Hawaii County and should NOT be approved.
Make no mistake, this Reso 163 unnecessarily bypasses the essential County due diligence procedures
designed to protect the public interest, and as presented, fails to ensure Hawaii Island's clean energy
future.
Mahalo a nui loa,
Bill Bugbee
bbugbee@no2oil.org
North Kona, 96740
District 8
2