HOUSE ENERGY COMMITTEE RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS AFTER THE CONFIRMATION OF ERRORS IN THE STATE ENERGY OFFICE'S STUDY TO SUPPORT LNG
- Hawai'i House Democrats
- 14 hours ago
- 3 min read
Honolulu, Hawaiʻi – Today, the House Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection expressed serious concerns over the reliability of analysis by the Hawaiʻi State Energy Office (HSEO), following the admission by HSEO, as well as confirmation by the Hawaiʻi Natural Energy Institute (HNEI) and the University of Hawaiʻi Economic Research Organization (UHERO) of significant errors in HSEO’s Alternative Fuels, Repowering, and Energy Transition Study.
For over a year, HSEO has been broadly using the study to support claims that importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) could save money for Hawaiʻi consumers.
“The Legislature, and the people of Hawai‘i, rely on the State Energy Office to provide accurate, competent, and objective analysis to inform policy directions and decisions,” said Committee Chair Nicole Lowen. “They’ve failed in their mission here.”
The Committee requested further clarification after the errors were presented in a March 12 informational briefing, yet the HSEO responded by denying any error and “unequivocally” standing by its analysis. In a March 19 letter to the Committee, HSEO finally acknowledged its critical error of omitting the costs of the LNG fuel in the scenario in which it claimed savings (Alternative 3A). That error alone amounted to almost $1 billion, turning purported savings for Hawai‘i consumers into hundreds of millions of dollars of losses.
In addition, reviews conducted by HNEI and the UHERO confirmed multiple material errors and raised broader concerns regarding questionable assumptions, lack of sensitivity analysis, and the study’s narrow focus on comparing LNG to oil only, rather than evaluating a full range of pathways that maximize affordability and renewable energy, and minimize volatility and reliance on fossil fuels.
HNEI concluded that “the spreadsheet errors identified during the March 12 briefing are confirmed to exist” and found that these errors render key results “incorrect” and insufficient to determine whether LNG would provide meaningful savings to Hawaiʻi ratepayers. UHERO similarly confirmed that LNG fuel costs were omitted from key calculations, effectively treating LNG fuel as free in the savings estimates and inflating the projected benefits significantly.
In its March 19 letter, HSEO acknowledged the error in the underlying model and indicated that it would reissue the study and remove its previously endorsed Alternative 3A from the report entirely. HSEO has now shifted to promoting another scenario, Alternative 1, which it had previously rejected in its study because it would involve using excess amounts of LNG and displacing lower-cost renewable energy development. This scenario also relies on assumptions identified by HNEI and UHERO as unrealistic or unsupported.
“The Energy Office appears to be pivoting to scenarios it previously deemed not viable or cost-effective, including pathways that undermine Hawaiʻi’s renewable energy goals and lead to higher costs,” said Chair Lowen. “It is beginning to seem like the only thing that the Energy Office is worried about getting right with this report is the conclusion."
All reviewers have emphasized that the current study does not provide any reliable basis for decision-making.
“The Energy Office has a legal responsibility to lead Hawaiʻi’s transition to a more affordable, independent, and secure clean energy future,” said Committee Vice Chair Amy Perruso. “Instead, we have seen HSEO focus all their attention and effort on clearing a pathway for one favored fossil fuel company, free from competition.”
The Committee will continue to exercise its oversight authority to ensure that future energy planning and analysis are transparent, accurate, and aligned with Hawaiʻi’s statutory clean energy goals.
“The stakes for Hawaiʻi’s residents are too high to rely on flawed and biased analysis,” Chair Lowen stated. “We remain committed to ensuring that analysis and decisions on our energy future are grounded in sound data, rigorous methodology, and full public transparency.”
###
Attachments
Comments