Keep up to date with the latest UHERO news.
This UHERO 101 intends to clarify some of the rate and policy aspects of PV in Hawai‘i, and explores the two opposite driving forces of PV adoption.
PV is an attractive investment in Hawai‘i where electricity rates are almost four times the national average. Rising electricity prices and falling system costs have largely driven the installation trend, with installations roughly doubling annually since 2007. Moreover, residential PV is quite cost-effective because it’s installation costs are up to 65% subsidized. In addition, there is ongoing support of PV in the form of Net Energy Metering (NEM). NEM gives households retail rate for their unused PV generation, rather than the wholesale rates paid for other sources of energy. As such, what many do not realize is that distributed PV can actually raise electricity rates rather than lower them. While PV customers benefit from providing their own energy and selling excess electricity back to the grid, non-PV customers are consequently likely to pay relatively more. Also, although PV certainly reduces the use of fossil fuels, it is not necessarily proportionately. Since PV is an intermittent source of energy, the utility also has to run spinning reserves to ensure reliable electricity at any given time.
To add to the confusing world of PV, Hawaiian Electric Industries recently modified its policy— both the primary metric used to determine circuit saturation and the process of connecting to the utility’s power grid. Prior to September 2013, distributed PV generation was limited to 15% of peak load on each circuit that, if exceeded, required the NEM applicant to pay for an interconnection requirements study (IRS). However this limit was not enforced for smaller systems under 10 kW (i.e. residential systems). However, now the metric of daytime minimum load (DML) is used to determine circuit saturation. The policy does not distinguish between small and large systems, and requires that written consent be obtained from the utility prior to installation.1 The details are summarized as follows:
1. Circuits below 75% of DML are not subject to an IRS or circuit upgrades. These projects should receive notice to proceed within 35 business days.
2. Circuits that fall between 75-99% of DML are not subject to an IRS but may require circuit upgrades. Depending on whether a supplemental review is required in addition to the initial technical review, these projects may receive a response anywhere from 35 to 85 business days.
3. Circuits beyond 100% of DML may require an IRS and circuit upgrades. Completing an IRS study may take up to an additional 165 calendar days on top of the initial and supplemental review.
As a result, on one hand, the policy change has slowed down solar installations, due to circuit upgrades. For projects above 75% of DML, customers have to first wait to hear whether a circuit upgrade is necessary and then, if deemed necessary, another several months for conducting the circuit upgrade. In addition to the long waiting period, potential customers face extra costs for circuit upgrades, which are allocated on a prorated basis and divided according to the size of the systems to be installed.
At the same time, the policy change provides further motivation for those customers who have been considering a PV system and whose homes are on circuits below 75% of DML, to join the race to install PV.2
* If you are thinking of installing PV, as an initial circuit availability check, enter your address here: http://www.heco.com/portal/site/heco/lvmsearch
- Sherilyn Wee and Makena Coffman
1In the past, submitting the NEM agreement was often the last paperwork step of the installation process. Applying for the City and County building permit was usually the first step, and now is applied for only after receiving approval to interconnect. Building permit approval takes about 20 business days.
2Previous state legislative discussions on reducing or phasing out the renewable energy investment tax credits have already commenced the “race” to install PV.
In light of declining global fish stocks, an immediate and important concern becomes the management of our fishery resources, both to protect the delicate ecosystems that they are a part of, and to ensure their viability as an economic and food resource for generations.
A controversial new method to manage fisheries is to assign “catch shares”. That is, grant fishermen or firms the right to land a certain amount of fish in any given year. From an economic perspective, assigning these rights (often referred to as individual transferrable quotas ITQs) has two potential benefits. First, because these ‘rights’ are transferrable, individuals and firms who value these rights the most have the ability to obtain them, by purchasing them from those who value them less. Second, having a long-term right to catch a certain share of the total catch may make share holders more willing to accept short-term reductions in catch in order to reap the benefits of recovered populations in the future.
Problems naturally arise when assigning these catch shares or ITQs. For one, we are commoditizing the rights to fish in the ocean. Second, there is a thorny issue in determining exactly how and to whom the catch shares should be allocated. Getting this process correct is absolutely critical to the success of implementing catch shares as a viable solution to our overfishing woes.
We have conducted research on catch share allocations around the globe, and our findings will soon be published in Marine Policy. We investigate how fishing rights were assigned in nearly every fishery in the world and have collected this information in a freely accessible database. Learning from others' successes and failures in assigning catch shares will be critical to designing and implementing a system that works for Hawai’i.
These findings should be informative for policy makers. 54% of fisheries who implement catch shares do it on the basis of historical catch, that is, how much fish you have caught in the past. A full 91% use some sort of historical catch in their calculation methods, incorporating vessel-based rules (the size of your boat determines your allocation), auctions, and equal sharing. Interestingly, auctions – which most economists would argue to be the best method for allocating public resources – have failed to gain traction as a viable method of allocating catch shares. Just 3% of fisheries use this method, and many that have tried (Estonia, Russia, New Zealand, Chile) have either switched to different methods in the face of protest, or abandoned auctions as a mechanism in other fishery allocations.
Especially important to Hawai’i is the effect of any potential allocation system on native Hawaiian rights to their land and resources. The findings show that New Zealand first allocates 20% of their fish to their native Māori population before distributing the rest. Careful consideration must be taken to ensure that all possible stakeholders, whether they be multinational conglomerates, small local businesses or native populations, be adequately involved in the process and benefit from rights to quota-based fishing.
As Hawai’i continues to find sustainable ways to continue its fishing operations, we must be cognizant of the benefits and risks of all of our options. In understanding how catch shares have been allocated before, we can learn a lot about how they might best serve Hawai’i, if at all, in the future.
-- John Lynham and Chaning Jang*
*Chaning Jang is a PhD Student at UH Manoa. He assisted John Lynham in this research and in writing this blog.
Sustaining economic growth requires appropriate husbandry of our natural capital resources (e.g. fish, trees, freshwater, and coral). But how much conservation is optimal? According to proponents of "strong sustainability," natural capital should never be depleted. This is inconsistent with maximizing economic welfare however. In less developed economies, for example, depleting natural capital may be the best way for an economy to accumulate the produced capital (e.g. buildings, transportation infrastructure, and machinery) that is needed to increase the productivity of labor.
Depending on current resource stocks, optimal economic growth may require either drawing down or building up natural capital to its optimal steady state level. For non-renewable resources such as oil, this often means substituting more abundant resources (e.g. clean coal) and eventually transitioning to renewable resources such as solar energy.
In addition to balancing the uses of natural and produced capital, sustainable growth requires intergenerational equity. Simply put, this is the principle of non-discrimination against future generations. By adding the non-discrimination requirement to the problem of welfare maximization in an economy whose production is dependent upon both produced and natural capital, we get conditions for optimal and sustainable growth. As it turns out, the conditions are familiar to economists, albeit from different parts of economics. From growth theory, we have the Ramsey (1928) requirement that produced capital should be accumulated in each period until its marginal product falls to a multiple of the growth rate of consumption. In the long run, as consumption approaches its golden rule level, the target marginal product goes to zero. The same condition applies to natural capital. And from resource economics we have the extended Hotelling (1931) condition that the resource should be depleted (or accumulated) in each period until net marginal benefit of that resource -- typically the resource price minus its extraction or harvesting cost -- is equal to the marginal opportunity cost of harvest that is imposed on future generations.
This formulation contains a paradox however. If individuals are impatient, i.e. they prefer consumption now to equal consumption later, how can society impose the condition of intergenerational neutrality, i.e. require that consumption in different periods be weighted equally? This would seem to violate the condition of consumer sovereignty, i.e. the requirement that social welfare and justice should be based on individual preferences (as well as social weightings thereof). We resolve this paradox with a model of overlapping generations. This allows us to consider a representation of social justice that eschews intergenerational discrimination, while simultaneously allowing individuals to be impatient regarding their own welfare. The surprising result is that while individual impatience matters for the lifetime consumption plan of the individual, it does not matter for aggregate consumption. Optimal and sustainable growth in the aggregate is therefore still governed by the Ramsey and extended Hotelling conditions.
What does optimal and sustainable growth imply for the evaluation of environmental projects? In particular, the present values of global programs to mitigate global warming depend crucially on the project discount rate. Does intergenerational justice require that the project discount rate be zero? It does not. From principles first established by Irving Fisher around the turn of the 19th century, the project discount rate depends on the productivity of capital as well as the social rate of impatience. Even if individuals were not impatient, the inherent productivity of capital would still result in a positive interest rate. Nonetheless, intergenerational equity may indeed imply that the appropriate discount rate is small, especially if global warming and the rate of technological improvement limit growth in the very long run. Indeed Sir Nicolas Stern has suggested a rate of only 1.4% for discounting the benefits of climate mitigation.
What are the implications of intergenerational equity for the deficit and the national debt? From the Ramsey condition, deficits and debt are consistent with sustainable growth but only so long as they finance investments with positive present values. Since future generations don't vote in current elections, debt may be a politically-expedient device to transfer resources from the future to the present, even when doing so reduces the welfare of future generations more than it increases the welfare of current voters. Economists can stand against this and other perversions of democracy by rendering the intergenerational consequences of social profligacy more transparent.
-- Lee Endress, James Roumasset, and Christopher Wada
Endress, L., Pongkijvorasin, S., Roumasset, J., Wada, C.A., 2013. “Intergenerational Equity with Individual Impatience in a Model of Optimal and Sustainable Growth.” Resource and Energy Economics (forthcoming).
Endress, L., Zhou, T., Roumasset, J., 2005. “Sustainable growth with environmental spillovers.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 58(4), 527-547.
Hotelling, H., 1931. “The economics of exhaustible resources.” The Journal of Political Economy 39, 137-175.
Ramsey, F.P., 1928. “A mathematical theory of saving.” Economic Journal 38(152), 543-559.
Note: This research extends earlier work by Endress et al. (2005) and is forthcoming in the peer-reviewed journal, Resource and Energy Economics (Endress et al., 2013). For more applications of economic principles to natural resource and environmental management problems, visit UHERO’s Project Environment (link to: http://www.uhero.hawaii.edu/45/project-environment).
Beginning in July 2013, the Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR) discontinued the regular monthly publication of industry payroll job counts for Kauai County, Maui County, and Hawaii County citing budgetary constraints. These statistics provided the most comprehensive and timely assessment of labor market conditions and served as an indicator of broader economic activity in each county. There are no alternative sources for this timely measure of our county economies. The loss of this data will negatively affect a number of stakeholders across the state.
The regular publication of industry payroll job counts is a valuable service to individuals and private business as well as policy makers. Imagine how hard it will be to evaluate the impact of the next shock such as a natural disaster, loss of an airline, or terrorist event. Of course, the jobs data are also crucial to understanding the evolution of the county economies during positive times. By identifying which industries are hiring and which are not, job seekers can concentrate their search in the fastest growing industries and students can make better choices on courses of study and training. Firms can use these figures to determine which industries are growing and which are shrinking, allowing them to assess business conditions among their suppliers, competitors, and customers. For policy makers these statistics are valuable for assessing economic conditions in real-time and evaluating the effects of new programs. With the termination of the industry payroll job counts, it will become increasingly difficult for private and public sector decision makers to make informed, data-driven decisions.
The discontinuation of these statistics comes at an especially unfortunate time as many federal statistical agencies are also ending publication of data as the result of the federal sequestration. The US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has recently announced that it is being forced to scale back its county level personal income statistics program. It remains to be seen what other data publications will be discontinued by federal agencies. These cuts together with the loss of industry payroll job counts will leave the public with precious little information that can be used to measure economic conditions on the Neighbor Islands.
At UHERO we believe that collecting and publishing this data is a valuable public service. If you agree we encourage you to contact your representatives at the State Legislature. Let them know about the value of these statistics and the serious data problem facing Kauai, Maui, and Hawaii counties. With your help we hope that funding will be reallocated so that DLIR can resume their work to collect and publish industry payroll job counts for all the counties in the state.
---Carl Bonham and James Jones
There are about 34,000 civilian federal jobs in Hawaii, a fraction of which were deemed essential and have therefore not been furloughed. Many of the 18,000 Department of Defense employees were ordered back on the job after the first week of the shutdown, and they are expected to be paid on time. Moreover, the House unanimously passed legislation to guarantee retroactive pay for all furloughed federal employees when the shutdown ends. But the effect of the shutdown goes beyond some delayed paychecks. Among others, it cuts into the income of many government contractors, hampers the investigation of the molasses spill in Honolulu Harbor, and leaves all seven national parks in the state closed, souring the mood of many visitors and ceasing the revenue stream to hundreds of tourism- dependent businesses.
In fact, consumer confidence has taken a nosedive since the first day of the shutdown, and if this decline persists, it may have a greater effect than lost/delayed income. In times of uncertainty people tend to cut back on discretionary spending such as leisure travel. Even if many would-be visitors end up eventually booking their trip to Hawaii, it may take a while before they do so. People also tend to put on hold the purchase of big ticket items and homes during uncertain times. The impact of the shutdown gets magnified as the reluctance to spend filters through the economy. Obviously, the longer the impasse lasts the greater its effects. Unfortunately, given the appetite of this Congress to create artificial crises, we may have to wait for calmer times at least until the next elections.