By Cynthia Oi
We are one state, the governor says, which is true, but out of true.
We are one state made up of islands connected under a government, but separated by vast stretches of ocean. That separation throws the truth of oneness off kilter, since it engenders divergent ways of living and somewhat conflicting aspirations and goals.
We are one state, but what Honolulu wants, what residents, business concerns, interest groups and political leaders on Oahu desire, isn’t quite what residents, businesses, interest groups and communities on Kauai, Lanai, Maui, Molokai or Hawaii island want.
Not all is different. Local residents — newbies and kamaainas, rural and urban — seek a good place to live, a clean environment, enough money and decent employment to make ends meet, and energy at reasonable cost.
Few will get the last, unless they become individually energy self-sufficient for the long term and remain disconnected to the power and power-production grid.
The governor, state Legislature, power producers and their allies have initiated a plan for a statewide energy system, establishing a regulatory framework for an undersea electricity transmission cable.
The measure is the starting point for hitching Oahu with its huge and growing appetite for electricity to what’s often referred to belittlingly as the outer or outlying islands, where renewable energy plants will have more space to breed.
The notion is the connectivity will benefit the neighbor islands, providing jobs, industry and more revenue ostensibly in local control. Oahu, crowded and getting more land poor with each suburban development given government blessing, will get to use the wind-, sun- and volcano-generated electricity.
The link will bring energy-cost equality, cable advocates say. All across Hawaii, electricity customers will pay one rate. It probably won’t be cheaper because the companies that control the grid will get to pass along the cost of the cable, now guesstimated at $1 billion, and renewable energy infrastructure and production will be expensive. Oneness in a sprawling power grid may not be a wise move anyway, subject to disasters natural and human-precipitated.
Hawaii’s goal to move away from fossil-fueled power is necessary. No one would argue with that. But the idea that the cable is essential to that intent, as the governor says, is premature in this early stage of renewable energy development.
Each island’s needs, potentials and conservation efforts should be assessed first, followed by a look at what resources can be reasonably tapped with least disruption to land, ocean, air and people. What will be acceptable should be evaluated based on the island’s community, not on what another needful, bustling region craves. Energy production and transmission that disturb and damage the character and atmosphere of an island is not sustainable.
Cable advocates argue that because Oahu, with the biggest revenue streams, subsidizes their highways, parks, social services and schools, the neighbor islands should be willing to shoulder the energy production burden.
It is an argument that goes against the theme of oneness. It reinforces neighbor islanders’ perception that the ocean that buffers them from the afflictions of brawny, overbearing Oahu should not be bridged.
