HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0218.002 1996-1998
r~
HAWAII ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY, INC.
Testimony
Bill No. 66
April 23, 1997
Good morning, Chariman Arakaki and members of the Hawaii County
Council. I am Clyde Nagata, Manager of Engineering for the Hawaii Electric
Light Company.
Bills No. 66 requests approval for a reclassification of 14.234 acres of
land from Agriculture to Urban district. The subject property is adjacent to
HELCO's Puna power plant.
I am here to express HELCO's concern regarding the applicant's plan.
If the plan is approved and the area surrounding the Puna plant is
developed, HELCO intends to be a good neighbor. However, we are
concerned that new property owners, subsequent to James McCully, may
not be cognizant of the current plant operations or have unrealistic
expectations. Specifically, we are concerned that new neighbors will
complain about air quality or stack emissions, plant noise, and daily
operations such as fuel deliveries, maintenance activities, etc.. Such
complaints would be groundless in that HELCO has obtained permits from
the appropriate regulatory agencies.
For example, we are concerned that new property owners who build
next to the Puna plant may notice stack emissions from time to time and
may claim that the emissions, even though within permit limits, constitute a
nuisance or that the emissions somehow cause damage to their property.
The Puna plant is vital to HELCO's overall operations in that it
provides approximatety 17% of the Big Island's power generation capacity
for the HELCO system and is operated 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. In
other words, the plant simply cannot be shut down without compromising the
availability and reliability of electric power for the entire island.
Moreover, it is simply not technologically oreconomically feasible to
completely prevent the emission of pollutants from the generating units at
the Puna plant or curtail daily operation and maintenance activities at the
Puna plant.
Therefore, HELCO urges that the County Council take these matters
into consideration when deciding whether final approval will be given to the
~0. 2 i$Loz
1 FI!e IQo.
Itef. 2b~ase~fe~G0111V GI(~
Re4 MAR 2 3 1997
new proposed development. HELCO is not opposed to the development.
However, we do believe that any new development should be undertaken
with the understanding that existing HELCO Puna plant generating
operations are present in the immediate area adjacent to the Applicant's
property.
Thank you for considering HELCO's concerns.
2