BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CO~ISSION

OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

In the Matter of

PUBLIC UTILITIES CONMISSION ) DOCKETNO. 2008-0273

Instituting a Proceeding toInvestigate the Implementation •)Of Feed-in Tariffs.

ORDERAPPROVINGTHE HECO COMPANIES’PROPOSEDPROCEDURALORDER, AS MODIFIED

~U

ILl-.- < -~

~oLia:: ~

U

BEFORETHE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

In the Matter of

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ) Docket No. 2008-0273

Instituting a Proceeding toInvestigate the ImplementationOf Feed-in Tariffs.

ORDERAPPROVINGTHE HECO COMPANIES’PROPOSEDPROCEDURALORDER, AS MODIFIED

By this Order, the commission approves, with

modifications, the proposed Stipulated Procedural Order submitted

on December 22, 2008, by HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.

(“HECO”), MAUI ELECTRIC COMPANY, LIMITED (“MECO”), HAWAII

ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY, INC. (“HELCO”) 1 the DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCEAND CONSUMERAFFAIRS, DIVISION OF CONSUMERADVOCACY

(“Consumer Advocate”), the DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT, AND TOURISM (“DBEDT”), the CITY AND COUNTY OF

HONOLULU, the COUNTY OF HAWAII, SEMPRA GENERATION, and HAWAII

HOLDINGS, LLC, doing business as FIRST WIND HAWAII (“First

Wind”) •2 The commission, however, modifies the Statement of

Issues, and adopts the Regulatory Schedule proposed by HAIKU

DESIGN AND ANALYSIS (“HDA”) with certain modifications, as set

forth herein.

1HECO, MECO and HELCO are collectively referred to as the“HECO Companies.”

2The proposed Stipulated Procedural Order is attached asExhibit 1 to this Order.

I.

Background

By the Order Initiating Investigation, filed on

October 24, 2008, the commission opened this docket to examine

the implementation of feed-in tariffs in the HECO Companies’

service territories. In that order, the commission directed the

parties to file a stipulated procedural order setting forth the

issues, procedures, and schedule to govern this proceeding.

“The Parties’ stipulated procedural schedule should, to the,

extent possible, allow the commission to complete its

deliberations and issue a decision by March 31, 2009. If the

Parties (and intervenors and participants, if any) are unable to

stipulate, each of them shall file a proposed order for the

commission’s review and consideration within the same deadline.”3

On December 22, 2008, the HECO Companies, the

Consumer Advocate, DBEDT, the City and County of Honolulu, the

County of Hawaii, Sempra Generation, and First Wind filed their

proposed Stipulated Procedural Order (“HECO Companies’ SPa”).4

Attached to the HECO Companies’ SPO at Exhibit A is a proposed

3Order Initiating Investigation, filed on October 24, 2008,at 8-9 (emphasis added).

4AS set forth in the letter accompanying the HECO Companies’proposed Stipulated Procedural Order, the HECO Companies state:“signatories have either authorized HECO representatives to signon their behalf or have provided facsimile signatures. To theextent that the Commission desires original signatures, pleaselet us know and we will secure those and transmit them to theCommission.” Original signatures are required to be filed withthe commission where facsimile signatures were provided.Allowing a party to sign on behalf of another party is notpermitted.

2008—0273 2

Stipulated Regulatory Schedule. In the letter accompanying the

SPO, the HECO Companies acknowledge that “there are certain

parties that agree with the substance of the SPO but which seek

to include additional issues or propose different dates or

procedural steps for Exhibit A to the SPO. The HECO Companies

respectfully submit that the attached SPO incorporates a modified

Statement of Issues which shall be liberally construed within

context and which encompasses many if not all of the additional

issues raised. “~

Also, on December 22, 2008, HDA filed its Proposed

Procedural Order (“HDA’s Procedural Order”) . According to HDA,

its “proposed procedural order consists of whatever Stipulated

Procedural Order is ultimately transmitted to the Commission that

is signed by the Consumer Advocate with the exception of (a) the

Exhibit A: Stipulated Regulatory Schedule and• (b) several

additions to the section ‘I. Statement of the Issues.’”6

According to HDA, “the proposed pace and deadlines set originally

by the signatories to the October Energy Agreement and adopted by

the Commission in its initiating order are not realistic. The

proposed schedules put speed ahead of prudence and belie the

parties’ collective reluctance to question the deadlines in the

Commission’s initiating order in the face of sound reason.”7 HDA

further states:

5Letter dated and filed December 22, 2008, from the HECOCompanies to the commission, at 3.

6Haiku Design and Analysis Proposed Procedural Order andCertificate of Service, at 2.

71d. at 2.

2008—0273 3

HDA proposes this schedule here to suggest to theCommission that the March 31 deadline could be.relaxed without delaying the ultimate outcome ofthe overall investigation and would’ provide theparties with more time to address a challengingroster of issues and tasks. Without arguing indetail the merits of a slower procedural schedulefor the first phase of this investigation, HDApoints out that the HDA schedule (a) provides forrealistic consideration of feed-in tariffsproposed by parties other than the joint proposalto be filed by HECO and the CA whereas the otherschedules do not, (b) provides for more realisticformal discovery timing, (c) offers the Commissionthe opportunity for panel hearings if desired, and(d) identifies specific times that the Commissionand its consultant, could provide comments andinformation requests available to all parties.

HDA urges the Commission to carefully review theschedules proposed by the parties in light of thecomplexity of the issues in this docket andconsider the importance of careful deliberation.HDA strongly advises prudence rather than haste.Things do need to move along with diligence butthe stakes and the costs of getting things wrongare much higher in this docket than, for instance,the decoupling docket. Decoupling is an ostensiblyrevenue neutral adjustment to rate design thatconsiders adjustments amounting to a few milliondollars that can be revisited and reversed at anytime by the Commission. The feed-in tariff docket,by comparison, considers entirely restructuringthe basis for pricing and procuring long termfixed obligations amounting to hundreds ofmillions of dollars with the challenging objectiveof prospectively setting prices correctly tocreate a new, stable and productive yet costeffective market structure.8

The following parties filed joinders to HDA’s Procedural Order:

HAWAII RENEWABLE ENERGY ALLIANCE (“HREA”); SOPOGY INC.

(“Sopogy”); LIFE OF THE LAND (“LOL”); ALEXANDER & BALDWIN, INC.

through its division, HAWAIIAN COMMERCIAL & SUGAR COMPANY

(“HC&S”); CLEAN ENERGYMAUI LLC; and TAWHIRI POWERLLC.

81d. at 3-4.

2008—0273 4

On December 22, 2008, HAWAII BIOENERGY, LLC (“HBE”) and

MAUI LAND & PINEAPPLE COMPANY, INC. (“MLP”) filed a Proposed

Stipulated Regulatory Schedule (“HBE and MLP’s Regulatory

Schedule”). HBE and MLP state that they do not object to the

HECOCompanies’ SPO with the exception of the proposed Stipulated

Regulatory Schedule attached to the SPO as Exhibit A, and thus

filed their own Proposed Stipulated Regulatory Schedule.

According to HBE and MLP, “the HECO Companies’ proposed

Stipulated Regulatory Schedule is too compressed and will not

provide HBE, MLP and the other parties with sufficient time to

fully review, analyze and address the issues in this proceeding,

to sufficiently develop and support their respective positions on

these issues, and to then assist the Commission in developing a

sound record and rendering decisions that are reasonable and in

the public interest.”9 “HBE and MLP contend that the Commission

should not be required to adhere to the deadlines set forth in

said Energy Agreement, and should consider the interests of the

parties that were not part of the Energy Agreement in

establishing the schedule for this proceeding.”’° BLUE PLANET

FOUNDATION filed a letter requesting that the commission adopt

HBE and MLP’s Regulatory Schedule.

HAWAII SOLAR ENERGYASSOCIATION and THE SOLAR ALLIANCE’1

filed statements of no position on the issue of the procedural

9Letter dated and filed December 22, 2008, from HBE and MLP

to the commission, at 1.

‘°Id. at 2.

“The Solar Alliance’s Statement of No Position as to the

Procedural Schedule does not appear to have been signed by a

2008—0273 5

schedule. ZERO EMISSIONS LEASING LLC did not file any statement

of position.

II.

Stipulated Procedural Order

In its Order Initiating Investigation, the commission

directed the parties to file a stipulated procedural order

setting forth the issues, procedures, and schedule to govern this

proceeding or, if they were unable to agree, to file separate

proposed procedural orders. From the filings, it appears that

the parties agree on the HECO Companies’ SPO with the exception

of the HECO Companies’ statement of issues and their proposed

regulatory schedule. As such, the commission will adopt the

HECO Companies’ SPO, subject to the modifications described

below with respect to the HECO Companies’ proposed statement of~

issues and regulatory schedule.

A.

Issues

In their SPO, the HECO Companies propose twelve issues.

The first issue, however, is: “The issues which the Commission

has identified in Exhibit C to its December 11, 2008 paper

entitled ‘Feed-In Tariffs: Best Design Focusing Hawaii’s

Investigation’ (Scoping Paper).” Exhibit C in turn contains

representative of The Solar Alliance. As noted above, allowing aparty to sign on behalf of another party is not permitted.Accordingly, a replacement signature page must be filed with thecommission.

2008—0273 6

twenty-nine issues exclusive of sub-issues. In addition, HDA

proposes five additional issues in its Procedural Order.

To better manage and articulate the issues in this

docket, the commission has reviewed all of the proposed issues

recommended by the parties and has developed the Statement of

Issues listed below. The commission’s Statement of Issues

embraces all of the issues proposed by the parties and the issues

raised in the paper prepared for the commission by the National

Regulatory Research Institute (“NRRI”). The commission has

annotated its Statement of Issues, noting where parties could

address each of the proposed issues. These annotations are

guides and the parties are free to address a matter noted with

one of the commission’s issues elsewhere within the issues listed

below. The commission expects the parties to discuss these

issues comprehensively, as indicated by the related issues and

questions noted. The issues listed below do not express any

preconception that the commission has about the outcome of this

investigation or even a preference for feed-in tariffs over other

means for utilities to purchase renewable resources.’2

According, Section I titled “Statement of the Issues”

in the HECO Companies’ SPO shall be replaced with the following:

‘21n HDA’s Procedural Order, HDA notes that there is“fundamental disagreement” between parties as to whether “it hasalready been determined that project-based feed-in tariffs willbe adopted.” As set forth in the commission’s Statement ofIssues, no such determination has been made and that issue is tobe decided in this docket.

2008—0273 7

I. STATEMENTOF ISSUES

Purpose of Prolect-Based Feed-In Tariffs (PBF±TS)13

1. What, if any, purpose do PBFiT5 play in meeting Hawaii’sclean energy and energy independence goals, givenHawaii’s existing renewable energy purchase requirementsby utilities?

2. What are the potential benefits and adverse consequencesof PBFiT5 for the utilities, ratepayers and the ‘State ofHawaii?

3. Why is or is not the PBFiT the superior methodology tomeet Hawaii’s clean energy and energy independence goals?

Legal Issues14 .

4. What, if any, modifications are prudent or necessary toexisting federal or state laws, rules, regulations orother requirements to remove any barriers or, tofacilitate the implementation of •a feed-in tariff not•based on avoided costs?

5. What evidence must the commission consider in establishinga feed-in tariff and has that evidence been presented inthis investigation?

Role of Other Methodologies15

6. What role do other methodologies for the utility to.acquire renewable energy play with and.without a PBFiT,including but not limited to power purchase contracts,competitive bidding, avoided cost offerings and netenergy metering?

13~ NRRI’s questions 6, 9, 23, 24 and 25, and HDA’s issues

1 and 2. NRRI’s questions refer to the questions raised inAppendix C of its paper titled “Feed-in Tariffs: Best DesignFocusing Hawaii’s Investigation,” which was distributed to theparties by commission letter dated December 11, 2008. HDA’sissues refer to those contained in HDA’s Procedural Order.

14~ NRRI’s questions 1-3 and HECO Companies’ issue 2. The

HECO Companies’ issues refer to those listed in their SPO.

15~ HECO Companies’ issues 10, .11 and NRRI’s questions 4

and 17.

2008—0273 8

Best design for a PBFIT or alternative method16

7. What is the best design, including the cost basis, forPBFiTs or other alternative feed-in tariffs to accelerateand increase the development of Hawaii’s renewable energyresources and their integration in the utility system?

Eligibility Recruirements’7

8. What renewable energy projects should be eligible forwhich renewable electricity purchase methods orindividual tariffs and when?

Analysis of the cost to consumers and appropriateness of caps18

9. What is the cost to consumers and others of the proposedfeed-in tariffs?

10. Should the commission impose caps based upon thesefinancial effects, technical limitations or other reasonson the total amount purchased through any mechanism ortariff?

Procedural Issues’9

11. What process should the commission implement forevaluating, determining and updating renewable energypurchased power mechanisms or tariffs?

12. What are the administrative impacts to the commission andthe parties of the proposed approach?

B.

Schedule

In its Order Initiating Investigation, filed on

October 24, 2008, the commission opened this docket to examine

16~ HECO Companies’ issues 3, 8 and 9 and NRRI’s questions

15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 29.

17~ HECO Companies’ issues 4, 5, 6 and NRRI’s questions 11,

12, 19.

~ HECO Companies’ issue 7, HDA’s issue 3 and NRRI’s

questions 7, 8, 13 and 14.

19~ HECO Companies’ issue 12, HDA’s issue 4, and NRRI’s

questions 5 and 10.

2008—0273 9

the implementation of feed-in tariffs in the HECO‘Companies’

service territories. In that order, the commission directed the

parties to file a stipulated procedural order setting forth the

issues, procedures, and schedule to govern this proceeding.

“The Parties’ stipulated procedural schedule should, to the

extent possible, allow the commission to complete its

deliberations and issue a decision by March 31, 2009.” A review

of the parties’ filings indicates that a majority do not believe

that it is possible to for the commission to complete’ its

deliberations and issue a decision on the first stage ,of the

proceeding by March 31, 2009. In particular, the commission is

cognizant of the statement by HBE and MLP in connection with

their proposed Regulatory Schedule “that the Commission should

not be required to adhere to the deadlines set forth in said

Energy Agreement, and should consider the interests of the

parties that were not part of the Energy Agre’ement in

establishing the schedule for this proceeding.”2°

Accordingly, after reviewing the three propose,d

regulatory schedules, the commission adopts HDA’s schedule, as it

provides the parties with additional time to review, analyze and

address the issues and to develop and support their’ respective

positions on these issues to allow for the development of a sound

record in this proceeding. As pointed out by HDA, its proposal

also includes the opportunity for panel hearings, which is an

important part of any investigatory docket.

201d. at 2.

2008—0273 10

The commission, however, modifies HDA’s proposed

schedule in several respects. Notably, the commission deletes

the January 14, 2009 requirement that the HECO Companies and

Consumer Advocate file straw tariff, sheets and requirements

related to that filing. In the commission’s view, these steps

are premature as there has been no determination on the issue of

whether feed-in tariffs should be adopted. By including such

deadlines early in the proceeding, as suggested by the parties,

it presumes the outcome of this proceeding. Accordingly, the

filing of straw tariff sheets and related deadlines are deleted.

In addition, the commission has included deadlines for

post-hearing opening and reply briefs, and has adjusted other

deadlines to accommodate those filings.

The following schedule replaces Exhibit A to the HECO

Companies’ SPO and governs this proceeding unless otherwise

ordered by the commission:

V P~OCEDURALSVTEP~ V. DEAD~INE.’

HECO Companies and Consumer December 23, 2008Advocate Filing to DescribeProposal on Key Feed-In TariffDesign Issues, Policies andPricing Methodologies

2. Parties’ Comments toCommission Scoping Paper

December 31, 2008

3. Response to Commission ScopingPaper Appendix C LegalQuestions

January 12, 2009

2008—0273 11

4 Response to Commission ScopingPaper Appendices A and C (Non-Legal Questions)

January 26, 2,009

‘

5. Information Requests toHECO/CA Regarding JointProposal

January 28, 2009

‘

6. Responses to InformationRequests

February 11, 2009

‘

7. All Parties’ OpeningStatements of PositionIncluding Proposals for Feed-in Tariff Designs, Policies ‘

and Pricing Methods

February 25, 2009

‘

‘

:

8. Information Requests by AllParties to Parties’ SOPs andProposals

March 4, 2009

‘

9. Responses to InformationRequests

March 13, 2009

10. Technical Conference andSettlement DiscussionsRegarding All Parties’Proposals

March 18-19, 2009

‘

11~ All Parties’ Final Statementsof Positions Regarding Feed-inTariff Designs, Policies andSpecific Pricing Proposals

March 30, 2009

12. Prehearing Conference Week ofApril 6, 2009

13. Panel Hearing .

‘

‘ Week ofApril 13, 2009

(until completed)

2008—0273 12

14. Opening Briefs May 1, 2009

15. Reply Briefs May 8, 2009

16. HECO’s Proposed TariffsImplementing Commission’sDecision

June 17, 2009

17. Technical Conference onProposed Tariffs

June 24, 2009

18. Comments by Parties onProposed Tariffs

July 8, 2009

19. Replies to Comments July 17, 2009

III.

Order

THE COMMISSION ORDERS:

The HECO Companies’ proposed Stipulated Prehearing

Order, attached as ‘Exhibit 1, is approved as modified herein,

consistent with the terms of this Order.

2008—0273 13

DONE at Honolulu, Hawaii •TA~1 2 (1 ~

APPROVEDAS TO FORM:

)~k ~4Stacey Kawasaki Djou

Commission Counsel

2008-0273.cp

PUBLIC UTILITIES’ COMMISSIONOF THE STATE OF HAWAII

By ~ ~Carlito P. Caliboso, Chairman

By

BIZ2%4

nlm

Leslie H. Kondo, Commissioner

2 008—0273 14

BEFORETHE PUBLIC UTILiTIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

In the Matter of ))

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ) DocketNo. 2008-0273)

Instituting Proceedings to Investigate the )Implementation of Feed-In Tariffs )

STIPULATED PROCEDURALORDER

EXHIBiT “A”

and

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Filed ‘ , 200_

At o’clock _____.M.

ChiefClerkof theCommission

EXHIBIT A

BEFORETHE PUBLIC UTILiTIES COMMISSION

OFTHE STATEOF HAWAII

In theMatterof ))

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ) DocketNo. 2008-0273

)InstitutingProceedingsto Investigatethe )Implementationof Feed-InTariffs )____________________________________________________________________________)

STIPULATED PROCEDURALORDER

HawaiianElectricCompany,Inc. (“HECO”), Maui ElectricCompany,Limited

(“MECO”), Hawaii ElectricLight Company,Inc. (“HELCO”), theDivision of Consumer

Advocacyof theDepartmentof Commerceand ConsumerAffairs (the“ConsumerAdvocate”),

theDepartmentof BusinessEconomicDevelopmentandTourism(“DBEDT”), City andCounty

of Honolulu (“City”), CountyofHawaii (“Hawaii County”), Hawaii HoldingsdbaFirstWind

Hawaii (“First Wind”), andSempraGeneration(“Sempra”)hereby

stipulatethattheattachedStipulatedProceduralOrderis mutuallyacceptableto eachrespective

party.

Dated:Honolulu,Hawaii, DecemberW, 2008.

By~t~PTHOMAS W. WILLIAMS, JR.PETERY. KIKUTA

ROD S. AOKIAttorneysforHawaiianElectricCompany,Inc., Maui ElectricCompany,Ltd., Hawaii ElectricLightCompany,Inc.

By ~ _______

MARK J.BENNETTDEBORAHDAY EMERSONGREGGJ.KINKLEYAttorneysfor theDepartmentofBusiness,EconomicDevelopment& Tourism

jByj~LINCOLNT. ASHIDA( WILLIAM V. BRILHANTE, JR.

Attorneysfor theCountyofHawaii

CA IEK.SGORDON D. NELSONAttorneysfor theCity andCountyofHonolulu

ByWARREN S. BOLLMEIER IIHawaii RenewableEnergyAlliance

ByHENRY Q CURTISLife of theLand

ByCARL FREEDMANHaiku Design& Analysis

ByJOHNN. REISopogy,Inc.

ByCHRIS MENTZELCleanEnergyMaui LLC

Advocacy

TSUCHIYAMAfor theDivision of Consumer

2

By ByERIK KVAM SANDRA-ANN Y.H. WONGZeroEmissions Leasing LLC Attorney for Alexander & Baldwin, Inc.

throughit ivision, HawaiianCommercial&

By SugarDOUGLAS A. CODIGA G RALDA. SUMIDAAttorneyfor Blue PlanetFoundation TIM LUI-KWAN

NATHAN C. NELSONAttorneysfor HawaiiHoldings,LLC dbaFirstWind Hawaii

By ByKENT D. MORIHARA RILEY SAITOKRIS N. NAKAGAWA The SolarAllianceSANDRA L. WILHIDE ‘

Attorneysfor Maui Land& PineappleCompany,Inc.

By By_______________________HARLANY. KTMURA MARKDUDAAttorneyfor TawhiriPowerLLC Hawaii SolarEnergyAssociation

/ By ~ .~_ By./~.“- THEODOREE. ROBERTS KENT D. MORII-IARASempra Generation KRIS N. NAKAGAWA

SANDRA L. WILHIDEAttorneysfor Hawaii Bioenergy,LLC

3

BEFORETHE PUBLIC UTILiTIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OFHAWAII

In theMatterof ))

PUBLICUTILITIES COMMISSION ) DocketNo. 2008-0273

)Instituting Proceedings to Investigate the )Implementation of Feed-In Tariffs )

7

STIPULATED PROCEDURALORDER

By theOrderInitiating Investigation,filed on October24, 2008(“Order”), the

Commissioninstitutedthisproceedingto investigatetheimplementationof feed-intariffs in the

serviceterritoriesofHawaiianElectricCompany,Inc. (“HECO”), Maui ElectricCompany,

Limited (“MECO”), andHawaii ElectricLight Company,Inc. (“HELCO”)(collectively “HECO

Companies”).

As discussedin theOrder,on October20, 2008,the Governorof theStateof Hawaii, the

StateofHawaii Departmentof Business,EconomicDevelopmentandTourism(“DBEDT”), the

Stateof HawaiiDivision of ConsumerAdvocacyof theDepartmentof CommerceandConsumer

Affairs (“ConsumerAdvocate”)andtheHECOCompaniesenteredinto acomprehensive

agreement(“Agreement”)designedto movetheStateawayfrom its dependenceon imported

fossil fuels for electricityandgroundtransportation,andtoward“indigenouslyproduced

renewableenergyand an ethicof energyefficiency.”1 A productoftheHawaii CleanEnergy

Initiative, theAgreementis acommitmenton thepart ofthe StateandtheHECOCompaniesto

Orderat1-2 (quotationsin original)(footnoteomitted)

acceleratetheadditionof new,cleanresourceson all islands;to transitiontheHECOCompanies

awayfrom amodel that encouragesincreasedelectricityusage;andto providemeasuresto assist

consumersin reducingtheirelectricitybills.2

Includedin theAgreementis a commitmentbytheHECOCompaniesto implementfeed-

in tariffs to acceleratetheadditionof renewableenergyfrom newsourcesandto encourage

increaseddevelopmentof alternativeenergyprojects.TheOrderdescribesafeed-intariff asa

“set of standardized,publishedpurchasedpowerrates,including termsandconditions,whichthe

utility will pay for eachtypeof renewableenergyresourcebasedon projectsizefed to thegrid.”3

As statedin theAgreement:

[F]eed-intariffs arebeneficialfor the developmentof renewableenergy,astheyprovidepredictabilityandcertaintywith respectto thefuturepricesto bepaidforrenewableenergyandhow muchof suchenergytheutility will acquire. Thepartiesagreethat feed-intariffs shouldbedesignedto covertherenewableenergyproducer’scostsof energyproductionplus somereasonableprofit, andthatthebenefitsto Hawaiifrom usingafeed-intariff to acceleraterenewableenergydevelopment(from loweringoil imports,increasingenergysecurity,andincreasingbothjobs andtax basefor thestate),exceedthepotentialincrementalrentspaidto therenewableprovidersin theshortterm.4

In theirAgreement,theHECOCompaniesandtheConsumerAdvocaterequestthat, by

March2009,theconmiission:

concludean investigativeproceedingto determinethebestdesignfor feed-intariffs thatsupporttheHawaii CleanEnergyInitiative, consideringsuchfactorsascategoriesof renewables,sizesor locationallimits for projectsqualifying for thefeed-intariff, how to manageandidentify projectdevelopmentmilestonesrelativeto thequeueof projectswishing to take thefeed-intariff terms, whatannuallimitsshouldapply to the amountofrenewablesallowedto take thefeed-intariff terms,what factors to incorporate into the prices set for feed-in tariff payments, and theterms,conditions,anddurationof thefeed-intariff thatshallbeofferedto allqualifyingrenewableprojects,andthecontinuingrole oftheCompetitiveBiddingFramework.5 ‘

2 Orderat2 (footnoteomitted)

~ Orderat 2 (quotationsin original)(footnoteomitted)~ Order at 2-3 (footnote omitted)~ Order at 3 (footnote omitted)

2

TheHECOCompaniesandtheConsumerAdvocatealso agreedthattheywould request

thatthecommission“adoptasetof feed-intariffs andpricesthat implementtheconclusionsof

thefeed-intariff investigationby July2009.~~6

GiventheHECOCompaniesandtheConsumerAdvocate’sagreements,theCommission

foundit appropriateto institutethis proceedingto addresstheissuesrelatedto implementationof

feed-intariffs in theHECOCompanies’serviceterritories. In addition,to expeditetheprocess,

thecommissiondirectedtheHECOCompaniesandtheConsumerAdvocateto submitto the

commissionajoint proposalon feed-intariffs that addressesall of thefactorsidentifiedin their

Agreementwithin sixty daysof thedateof theCommission’sOrder. TheCommissiondirected

thatthejoint proposalshouldtakeinto accounttheconsiderationsandcriteriaset forth in a

scopingpaperon feed-intariffs thatwill beissuedby thecommissionin this docket.7

Sincetheyweresignatoriesto theAgreement,andwill be impactedby theoutcomeof

this investigation,theconmiissionnamedaspartiesto thisproceeding:HECO,HELCO,MECO,

andtheConsumerAdvocate.8

By its November28, 2008OrderGrantingIntervention(“OrderGrantingIntevention”),

theCommissiongrantedthemotionsto interveneasa partyof theDepartmentOf Business

EconomicDevelopmentAndTourism(“DBEDT”), City And CountyOf Honolulu (“City”),

CountyOfHawaii (“Hawaii County”), Hawaii RenewableEnergyAlliance (“HREA”), Life Of

TheLand(“LOL”), Haiku DesignAndAnalysis(“Haiku”), Sopogy,Inc. (“Sopogy”), Clean

EnergyMaui LLC (“CleanEnergy”),ZeroEmissionsLeasingLLC (“Zero Emissions”),

6 Orderat3 (quotationsin original)(footnoteomitted)

~ Orderat3-4~ Orderat5-6

3

Alexander& BaldwinThroughIts Division HawaiianCommercial& SugarCompany

(“HC&S”), BluePlanetFoundation(“Blue Planet”),HawaiiHoldingsdbaFirstWind Hawaii

(“First Wind”), Maui Land& PineappleCompany(“Maui Land”),The SolarAlliance(“Solar

Alliance”), Tawhiri Power(“Tawhiri”), HawaiiSolarEnergyAssociation(“HSEA”), Sempra

Generation(“Sempra”)AndHawaii Bioenergy,LLC (“Hawaii Bioenergy”)(collectively

“Parties”).9

TheOrderstatesthat within forty-five daysfrom thedateof theOrder,thePartiesshall

file astipulatedproceduralordersettingforth the issues,procedures,andscheduleto governthis

proceeding.ThestipulatedproceduralschedulethatthePartiessubmitto thecommission,

should,to theextentpossible,allow thecommissionto completeits deliberationsandissuea

decisionby March 31, 2009. If thePartiesareunableto stipulate,eachofthemshall file

proposedordersfor thecommission’sreviewandconsiderationwithin thesamedeadline.’0 The

OrderGrantingInterventionextendedthedeadlinefor filing astipulatedproceduralorderuntil

December22, 2008.11

Thepartiesagreethat thefollowing provisionsofthis StipulatedProceduralOrderare

mutuallyacceptableto each.

ACCORDINGLY, iT IS ORDEREDthatthefollowing StatementofIssues,Schedule’of

Proceedings,andproceduresshallbeutilized in thisdocket.

I. STATEMENT OF THEISSUES

Theissuesin thisdocket,which shallbe liberallyconstruedwithin context,are:

~ OrderGrantingInterventionat OrderingParagraph110 Orderat7“ OrderGrantingInterventionat OrderingParagraph2.

4

1. Theissueswhichthe Commissionhasidentifiedin Exhibit C to its December11, 2008paperentitled“Feed-InTariffs: BestDesignFocusingHawaii’s Investigation”(ScopingPaper).

2. What,if any,modificationsareprudentandlornecessaryto existingfederalorstatelaws,rules, regulationsor otherrequirementsto removeanybarriersor to otherwisefacilitatetheimplementationof afeed-intariff?

3. Whatis thebestdesignfor feed-intariffs that supporttheaccelerationandincreaseddevelopmentof indigenousrenewableenergyresourcesin Hawaii, andtheirintegrationin theutility systems?

4. Whatcategoriesof renewableenergyresourcesshouldbeeligible to participatein afeed-in tariff?

5. Shouldtherebeanylimits on size,or location,or level of interconnectionfor renewableenergyprojectsqualifyingfor thefeed-intariff? If so, what shouldthoselimits be andhow shouldthoselimits beset?

6. How shouldprojectdevelopmentmilestonesrelativeto thequeueof projectswishingtotakethefeed-intariff termsbemanagedandidentified?

7. Shouldannuallimits applyto theamountof renewablesallowedto takethefeed-intariffterms? If so,how would theseannuallimits beset? How will otherrenewableprojectsbe treatedoncetheselimits aremet?

8. Whatfactorsshouldbe incorporatedinto thepricessetfor feed-intariff payments?

9. Whatshouldbetheterms,conditions,interconnectionrequirements,proceduresanddurationofthefeed-intariff thatshouldbe availableto qualifyingrenewableproviders?

10. Whatis thecontinuingrole of theCompetitiveBidding Frameworkgivenanyimplementationof afeed-intariff?

11. Whatshouldtherelationshipbebetweentheproposedfeed-intariff andnetenergymetering?

12. Whetherthereshouldbeaprocessor procedureto allow for theevaluationof thefeed-intariff programovertime.

5

II. SCHEDULE OF PROCEEDINGS

Thepartiesshalladhereto thescheduleof proceedingssetforth in the Stipulated

RegulatoryScheduleheretoattachedasExhibit “A”. Notwithstandingtheabove,theparties

shallhavetheright to amendtheStipulatedRegulatoryScheduleasmaybe agreedin writing and

approvedby theCommissionfrom time to time. However,the intentofthepartiesin agreeingto

ascheduleatthis time is to promotetheefficientandcost-effectiveallocationof resourcesandto

meetthedeadlinessetforth in theAgreement.Thereforeany changesto thescheduleshouldbe

proposedonly whenthereis anurgencyorsubstantialcompetingneedthatcannotbereasonably

accommodatedwithout achange.

III. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS TO FACILITATE AND EXPEDITETHE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF THESE PROCEEDINGS

A. Refluestsfor Information

A partyto thisproceedingmaysubmitinformationrequeststo anotherpartywithin the

time schedulespecifiedin this StipulatedProceduralOrder. If apartyis unableto providethe

informationrequestedwithin theprescribedtimeperiod,it shouldsoindicateto the inquiring

partyassoonaspossible.Thepartiesshall thenendeavorto agreeuponalaterdatefor

submissionof therequestedinformation. If thepartiesareunableto agree,therespondingparty,

asapplicable,mayseekapprovalfor thelate submissionfrom theCommissionuponashowing

of goodcause.It is thenwithin theCommission’sdiscretionto approveor disapprovesuchlate

filings andtakeany additionalactionthatmaybe appropriate,suchasextendingthedatefor the

partyto respond.

In lieu of responsesto informationrequeststhat would requirethereproductionof

voluminousdocumentsormaterials(e.g.,documentsover 50 pages),thedocumentsormaterials

6

maybemadeavailablefor reasonableinspectionandcopyingat amutuallyagreeabledesignated

locationandtime. In theeventsuchinformationis availableon computerdisketteorother

readilyusableelectronicmedium,thepartyrespondingto theinformationrequestshallmakethe

disketteor suchelectronicmediumavailableto theotherpartiesandtheCommission.Subjectto

objectionsthatmaybe raisedandto theextentpracticable,theelectronicfiles for spreadsheets

will containall cell referencesandformulaeintact,andwill notbeconvertedto valuesprior to

submission. A party shallnot berequired,in aresponseto aninformationrequest,to provide

datathat is/arealreadyon file with theCommissionor otherwisepartofthepublic record. The

respondingpartyshall, in lieu ofproductionof adocumentin thepublic record,includein its

responseto theinformationrequestan identificationof thedocumentwith reasonablespecificity

sufficientto enabletherequestingparty to locateandcopy thedocument.In addition,aparty

shallnotbe required,in aresponseto an informationrequest,to makecomputations,compute

ratios,reclassify,trend,calculate,orotherwisereworkdatacontainedin its filesor records.

For eachresponseto an informationrequest,therespondingpartyshouldidentifythe

personwhois responsiblefor preparingtheresponseaswell asthewitnesseswhowill be

responsiblefor sponsoringtheresponseattheevidentiaryhearing.

A partymayobjectto respondingto aninformation requestthatit deemsto be irrelevant,

immaterial,undulyburdensome,onerousorrepetitious,orwheretheresponsecontains

informationclaimedto beprivilegedor subjectto protection(confidentialinformation). If a

partyclaimsthatinformationrequestedis confidential,andwithholdsproductionofall or a

portionof suchconfidentialinformation, thepartyshall: (1)provideinformationreasonably

sufficient to identify theconfidentialinformationwithheldfrom theresponse,withoutdisclosing

privilegedorprotectedinformation; (2)statethebasisfor withholdingtheconfidential

7

information(including,butnot limited to, thespecificprivilegeapplicableor protectionclaimed

for the confidential information and the specific harmthat wouldbefall thepartyif the

informationweredisclosed);and(3) statewhetherthepartyis willing to providetheconfidential

informationto someor all representativesofthepartypursuantto aprotectiveorder.

A partyseekingproductionof documentsnotwithstandingaparty’sclaimof

confidentiality,mayfile amotion to compelproductionwith theCommission.

Theresponsesofeachpartyto informationrequestsshalladhereto auniform systemof

numberingagreeduponby theparties. Forexample,thefirst informationrequestsubmittedby

theConsumerAdvocatein this docketshallbe referredto anddesignatedas“CA-IR- 1” anda

responseto this informationrequestshallbe referredto anddesignatedas“Responseto

CA-JR-i

Eachresponseshallbeprovidedon aseparatepageandshallrecitethe entirequestion

askedandsetforth theresponseand/orreferencethe attachedresponsivedocument,indicating

thenameof therespondentfor eachresponse.

B. Copiesof Documentsand Statementsof Position

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Original + 8 copies465 SouthKing StreetFirst FloorHonolulu,HI 96813

CATHERINE P. AWAKUNI 2 CopiesEXECUTIVE DIRECTORDEPT OF COMMERCE& CONSUMERAFFAIRSDIVISION OF CONSUMERADVOCACYP.O. Box 541

Honolulu,Hawaii 96809

8

DEAN MATSUURA 1 CopyMANAGERREGULATORYAFFAIRSHAWAIIANELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.P.O. Box 2750Honolulu,HI 96840-0001

JAY IGNACIO 1 CopyPRESIDENTHAWAII ELECTRICLIGHT COMPANY, INC.P.0. Box 1027Hilo, HI 96721-1027

EDWARD L. REJNHARDT 1 CopyPRESIDENTMAUl ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.P. 0. Box 398Kahului, HI 96732

THOMAS W. WILLIAMS, JR.,ESQ. 1 CopyPETERY. KIKUTA, ESQ.DAMON L. SCHMIDT, ESQ.GOODSILL, ANDERSONQUINN & STIFELAlii Place,Suite 18001099AlakeaStreetHonolulu,Hawaii 96813Counselfor HawaiianElectricCompany,Inc.,Maui ElectricCompany,Limited, andHawaiiElectricLight Company,Inc.

ROD S. AOKII, ESQ. 1 CopyALCANTAR & KAHLLLP120 MontgomeryStreetSuite2200SanFrancisco,CA 94104Counselfor HawaiianElectric Company,Inc.,Maui ElectricCompany,Limited, andHawaiiElectricLight Company,Inc.

MARK J.BENNETT, ESQ. 1 CopyDEBORAH DAY EMERSON, ESQ.GREGG J. KINKLEY, ESQ.DEPARTMENTOFTHEATTORNEYGENERAL425 QueenStreetHonolulu,Hawaii 96813Counselfor DBEDT

9

CARRIE K.S. OKINAGA, ESQ. 1 CopyGORDON D. NELSON, ESQ.DEPARTMENTOFTHE CORPORATION COUNSELCITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU530 South King Street,Room 110Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

LINCOLN S.T. ASHIDA, ESQ. 1 CopyWILLIAM V. BRILHANTE JR., ESQ.MICHAEL J. UDOVIC, ESQ.DEPARTMENT OF THE CORPORATION COUNSELCOUNTY OF HAWAII101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325Hilo, Hawaii 96720

MR. HENRY Q CURTIS 1 CopyMS. KAT BRADYLIFE OF THE LAND76 North King Street, Suite 203Honolulu, Hawaii 96817

MR. CARL FREEDMAN 1 CopyHAIKU DESIGN & ANALYSIS4234Hana HighwayHaiku, Hawaii 96708

MR. WARREN S. BOLLMEIER II 1 CopyPRESIDENTHAWAII RENEWABLEENERGYALLIANCE46-040KonanePlace,#3816Kaneohe,Hawaii 96744

DOUGLAS A. CODIGA, ESQ. 1 CopySCHLACK fF0 LOCKWOOD PIPER & ELK1NDTOPA FINANCIAL CENTER745 Fort Street, Suite 1500Honolulu, Hawaii 96813Counselfor BLUE PLANETFOUNDATION

MR. MARK DUDA 1 CopyPRESIDENTHAWAII SOLAR ENERGY ASSOCIATIONP.O. Box 37070Honolulu, Hawaii96837

10

MR. RILEY SA1TO 1 CopyTHE SOLAR ALLIANCE73-1294AwakeaStreetKailua-Kona,Hawaii96740

JOEL K. MATSUNAGA 1 CopyHAWAII BIOENERGY, LLC737Bishop Street,Suite 1860PacificGuardianCenter,MaukaTowerHonolulu,Hawaii96813

KENT D. MORIHARA,ESQ. 1 CopyKRIS N. NAKAGAWA, ESQ.SANDRA L. WILHIDE, ESQ.MORII-IARA LAU & FONGLLP841 BishopStreet,Suite400Honolulu,Hawaii 96813Counselfor HAWAII BIOENERGY,LLCCounsel for MAUI LAND & PINEAPPLE COMPANY, INC.

MR. THEODORE E. ROBERTS 1 CopySEMPRA GENERATION101 Ash Street,HQ 12SanDiego,California92101

MR. CLIFFORD SMITH 1 CopyMAUI LAND & PINEAPPLECOMPANY, INC.P.O. Box 187Kahului,Hawaii 96733

MR. ERIK KVAM 1 CopyCHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICERZEROEMISSIONS LEASING LLC2800WoodlawnDrive, Suite 131Honolulu,Hawaii 96822

JOHNN. REI 1 CopySOPOGY INC.2660Waiwai LoopHonolulu,Hawaii 96819

11

GERALD A. SUMIDA, ESQ. 1 CopyTIM LUI-KWAN, ESQ.NATHANC. NELSON, ESQ.CARLSM1TH BALL LLPASB Tower, Suite 22001001 BishopStreetHonolulu, Hawaii 96813Counselfor HAWAII HOLDINGS, LLC,dba FIRST WIND HAWAII

MR. CHRIS MENTZEL 1 CopyCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERCLEAN ENERGY MAUI LLC619 Kupulau DriveKihei, Hawaii 96753

MR. HARLAN Y. KIMURA, ESQ. 1 CopyCENTRAL PACIFIC PLAZA220 SouthKing Street,Suite 1660Honolulu,Hawaii 96813Counselfor TAWHIRl POWERLLC

SANDRA-ANN Y.H. WONG, ESQ. 1 CopyATTORNEY AT LAW, A LAW CORPORATION.1050Bishop Street,#514Honolulu,HI 96813Counselfor ALEXANDER & BALDWIN, INC.,Throughits division,HAWAIIAN COMMERCIAL & SUGARCOMPANY

C. Filings. All documentsrequiredto be filed with theCommissionshallcomply

with theformattingrequirementsprescribedpursuantto Chapter61, Subchapter2, Section6-61-

16 ofthe Commission’sRulesof PracticeandProcedureandshallbefiled at theoffice ofthe

Commissionin Honoluluwithin thetimelimit prescribedpursuantto Chapter61, Subchapter2,

Section6-61-15oftheCommission’sRulesofPracticeandProcedure.

Copiesof all documentsshouldbesentto theCommissionandDivision of Consumer

Advocacyby handdeliveryor UnitedStatesmail (first class,postageprepaid). TheParties

12

stipulateandagreethatserviceof documentsbetweenParties,otherthandocumentsdesignated

asconfidentialpursuantto any protectiveorderadoptedin this proceeding,shallbe served

electronicallyviae-mail in aportabledocumentformat(“pdf”) by 5:00p.m. on thedaydue. The

Partiesagreeto useWord 97,Word 2000orWord 2003asthe standardprogrammingformatfor

filings in this caseandwill submittheir informationrequeststo theotherPartiesin this format.

ThePartiesalsoagreeto submitany spreadsheets(e.g.,usedasworkpapersorexhibits)in

MicrosoftExcel format. However,if workpapers,documentation,orexhibitsattachedto any

filing arenot readilyavailablein anelectronicformat,apartyshallnotberequiredto convert

suchworkpapers,documentation,orexhibits into an electronicformat. Also, existingdocuments

neednotbeconvertedto Word 97/Word2000/Word2003aslong astheapplicableformatis

identified.

D. Communications

Chapter61, Subchapter3, Section6-61-29of theCommission’sRulesof Practiceand

Procedureconcerningex partecommunicationsis applicableto anycommunicationsbetweena

partyand theCommission.However,thePartiesmaycommunicatewith Commissioncounsel

onmattersof practiceandprocedurethroughtheirown counselor designatedofficial.

CommunicationsbetweenthePartiesshouldeitherbe throughcounselor through

designatedrepresentatives.All pleadings,papers,andotherdocumentsfiled in this proceeding

shallbeservedon theopposingparty. All motions,supportingmemoranda,andthe like shall

alsobe servedon opposingcounsel.

E. General

Theseproceduresareconsistentwith theorderlyconductofthis docket. This Stipulated

ProceduralOrdershallcontrolthesubsequentcourseoftheseproceedings,unlessmodifiedby

13

thePartiesin writing andapprovedby theCommission,orupontheCommission’sown motion.

This StipulatedProceduralOrdermaybeexecutedby thePartiesin counterparts,eachof

which shallbe deemedan original, andall of whichtakentogethershallconstituteoneandthe

sameinstrument. ThePartiesmayexecutethis StipulatedProceduralOrderby facsimilefor

initial submissionto theCommissionto befollowed by thefiling of originalsof saidfacsimile

pages.

APPROVED AND SO ORDERED THIS__________________________

atHonolulu,Hawaii.

PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSIONOF THE STATE OF HAWAII

ByCarlitoP. Caliboso,Chairman

ByJohn E. Cole,Commissioner

ByLeslieH. Kondo,Commissioner

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

StaceyKawasakiDjouCommissionCounsel

14

EXHIBIT A

Stipulated Regulatory ScheduleProceedingto Investigatethe Implementation of Feed-In Tariffs

DocketNo.2008-0273

PROCEDURALSTEPS DEADLINE

IIECO Companiesand ConsumerAdvocate December23. 2008Filing to DescribeProposalon Key Feed-InTariff DesignIssues,PoliciesandPricingMethodologies

2. Parties’CommentsonCommissionScopingPaper

December31,2008

3. Respondto CommissionScopingPaperAppendix_C_Legal_Questions

January12, 2009

4. HECOCompaniesandConsumerAdvocateFile StrawTariff SheetsandMethodologies

January14, 2009

5.Parties’ Informal Questionsto be addressedatTechnicalMeeting January16, 2009

6. TechnicalMeetingto ExplainTariff SheetsandRespondto Questionsfrom parties

January20, 2009

7. Respondto CommissionScopingPaperAppendicesA andC (Non-LegalQuestions)

January26,2009

8. Parties’CommentsonStrawTariff Sheetsand/orSimultaneousDistributionofAlternative_Straw_TariffSheets

January30,2009

9. SimultaneousInformationRequestsby theParties(limited to 5 questionsto eachpartywith_no_subparts)

February6, 2009

10. SettlementDiscussions February13, 2009

11.SimultaneousResponseto InformationRequests February27, 2009

12. Filing of SettlementAgreementorSimultaneous_Statements_ofPosition

March 13, 2009

15

PROCEDURAL STEPS DEADLINE

13. March31, 2009CommissionCompletionof DeliberationsandDecisionon Designof Feed-inTariffs

14. HECOCompaniesandConsumerAdvocateRequestthat theCommissionAdoptaSetofFeed-InTariffs andPricesthatImplementthe Commission’sDecision

April 24, 2009‘

‘

15. TechnicalWorkshopon Tariff Sheets(toexplainandclarify Tariff sheetsto Parties)

May 8, 2009.

16. Parties’Commentson HECOCompaniesandConsumerAdvocateRequestthat theCommission Adopt a Set of Feed-In TariffsandPricesthatImplementthe Commission’sDecision

May29, 2009‘

‘

‘

17. HECOCompaniesandConsumerAdvocateReplyComments

July 6, 2009

18. CommissionAdoptionofFeed-InTariffsandPricesthatImplementthe Commission’sDecision

July 31,2009

16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

TheforegoingStipulatedProceduralOrderwasservedon thedateof filing by mail,

postageprepaid,andproperlyaddressedor electronicallytransmittedto eachsuchParty.

CATHERINEP.AWAKUNI 2 CopiesEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Via HandDeliveryDEPT OF COMMERCE & CONSUMER AFFAIRSDIVISION OF CONSUMER ADVOCACYP.O. Box 541Honolulu,Hawaii 96809

DEAN MATSUURA 1 Copy U.S. MailMANAGERREGULATORY AFFAIRSHAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.P.O. Box 2750Honolulu,HI 96840-0001

JAY IGNACIO 1 Copy U.S. MailPRESIDENTHAWAII ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY, INC.P. 0. Box 1027Hilo, HI 96721-1027

EDWARDL. REINHARDT 1 Copy U.S. MailPRESIDENTMAUl ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.P. 0. Box 398Kahului, HI 96732

THOMAS W. WILLIAMS, JR., ESQ. 1 Copy U.S. MailPETERY. KIKUTA, ESQ.DAMONL. SCHMIDT, ESQ.GOODSILL, ANDERSONQUINN& STIFELAlii Place,Suite 18001099AlakeaStreetHonolulu,Hawaii 96813

ROD S. AOKI, ESQ. 1 Copy U.S. MailALCANTAR & KAHL LLP120 MontgomeryStreetSuite2200SanFrancisco,CA 94104

1

MARKJ. BENNETT, ESQ. 1 Copy U.S. MailDEBORAH DAY EMERSON, ESQ.GREGG J. KINKLEY, ESQ.DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL425 QueenStreetHonolulu,Hawaii96813CounselforDBEDT

CARRIE K.S. OKINAGA, ESQ. 1 Copy U.S. MailGORDON D. NELSON, ESQ.DEPARTMENTOF THE CORPORATIONCOUNSELCITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU530 South King Street, Room 110Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 ‘

LINCOLN S.T. ASHIDA, ESQ. 1 Copy U.S. Mail’WILLIAM V. BRILHANTEJR., ESQ.MICHAELJ. UDOVIC, ESQ.DEPARTMENTOFTHE CORPORATION COUNSELCOUNTYOFHAWAII101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325Hilo, Hawaii 96720

MR. HENRYQ CURTIS 1 Copy U.S. MailMS. KAT BRADYLIFE OF THE LAND76 NorthKing Street,Suite203Honolulu, Hawaii 96817

MR. CARL FREEDMAN 1 Copy U.S. MailHAIKU DESIGN & ANALYSIS4234 Hana HighwayHaiku, Hawaii 96708

MR. WARRENS. BOLLMEIER H 1 Copy U.S. MailPRESIDENTHAWAII RENEWABLEENERGYALLIANCE46-040 Konane Place, #38 16Kaneohe, Hawaii 96744

DOUGLASA. CODIGA, ESQ. 1 Copy U.S. MailSCHLACKITO LOCKWOODPIPER & ELKINDTOPAFINANCIAL CENTER745 Fort Street, Suite1500Honolulu, Hawaii 96813Counselfor BLUE PLANET FOUNDATION

2

MR. MARK DUDA 1 Copy U.S.MailPRESIDENTHAWAII SOLARENERGYASSOCIATIONP.O. Box 37070Honolulu,Hawaii 96837

MR. RILEY SAITO 1 Copy U.S. MailTHE SOLAR ALLIANCE73-1294AwakeaStreetKailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740

JOELK. MATSUNAGA 1 Copy U.S. MailHAWAII BIOENERGY, LLC737Bishop Street,Suite 1860PacificGuardianCenter,MaukaTowerHonolulu,Hawaii 96813

KENT D. MORHARA, ESQ. 1 Copy U.S. MailKRIS N. NAKAGAWA, ESQ.SANDRA L. WILHIDE, ESQ.MORIHARA LAU & FONGLLP841 BishopStreet,Suite400Honolulu,Hawaii 96813Counselfor HAWAII BIOENERGY,LLCCounselfor MAUI LAND & PINEAPPLECOMPANY, INC.

MR. THEODOREE. ROBERTS 1 Copy U.S. MailSEMPRAGENERATION101 AshStreet,HQ 12SanDiego,California92101

MR. CLIFFORDSMITH 1 Copy U.S. MailMAUI LAND & PINEAPPLECOMPANY, INC.P.O. Box 187Kahului, Hawaii 96733

MR. ER1KKVAM 1 Copy U.S. MailCHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICERZEROEMISSIONSLEASINGLLC2800WoodlawnDrive, Suite 131Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

3

JOHNN. REl 1 Copy U.S. MailSOPOGYINC.2660WaiwaiLoopHonolulu, Hawaii 96819

GERALDA. SUMIDA, ESQ. 1 Copy U.S. MailTIM LUI-KWAN, ESQ.NATHANC. NELSON,ESQ.CARLSMITH BALL LLPASB Tower,Suite22001001Bishop StreetHonolulu, Hawaii 96813Counselfor HAWAII HOLDINGS, LLC, dba FIRST WIND HAWAII

MR. CHRIS MENTZEL 1 Copy U.S. MailCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERCLEANENERGYMAUILLC619 KupulauDriveKihei, Hawaii 96753

MR. HARLAN Y. KIMURA, ESQ. 1 Copy U.S. MailCENTRALPACIFIC PLAZA220 South King Street, Suite 1660Honolulu, Hawaii 96813Counsel for TAWHIRl POWERLLC

SANDRA-ANN Y.H. WONG, ESQ. 1 Copy U.S. MailATTORNEY AT LAW, A LAW CORPORATION1050Bishop Street,#514Honolulu,HI 96813Counselfor ALEXANDER & BALDWIN, INC.,Throughits division, HAWAIIANCOMMERCIAL& SUGARCOMPANY

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The foregoing order was served on the date of filing by

mail, postage prepaid, and properly addressed to the following

parties:

CATHERINE P. AWAKUNIEXECUTIVE DIRECTORDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMERAFFAIRSDIVISION OF CONSUMERADVOCACYP. 0. Box 541Honolulu, HI 96809

DEAN MAT SUURAMANAGERREGULATORYAFFAIRSHAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.P. 0. Box 2750Honolulu, HI 96840-0001

JAY IGNACIOPRESIDENTHAWAII ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY, INC.P. 0. Box 1027Hilo, HI 96721—1027

EDWARD L. REINHARDTPRESIDENTMAUI ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.P. 0. Box 398Kahului, HI 96732

THOMASW. WILLIAMS, JR., ESQ.PETER Y. KIKUTA, ESQ.DAMONL. SCHMIDT, ESQ.GOODSILL ANDERSONQUINN & STIFELAlii Place, Suite 18001099 Alakea StreetHonolulu, HI 96813

Counsel for HECO COMPANIES

Certificate of ServicePage 2

ROD S. AOKI, ESQ.ALCANTAR& KAHL LLP120 Montgomery Street, Suite 2200San Francisco, CA 94104

Counsel for HECO COMPANIES

THEODORE PECKDEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND TOURISMState Office Tower235 South Beretania Street, Room 501Honolulu, HI 96813

ESTRELLA SEESEDEPARTMENTOF BUSINESS, ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT, AND TOURISMState Office Tower235 South Beretania Street, Room 501Honolulu, HI 96813

MARK J. BENNETT, ESQ.DEBORAH DAY EMERSON, ESQ.GREGGJ. KINKLEY, ESQ.DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEYGENERAL425 Queen StreetHonolulu, HI 96813

Counsel for DBEDT’

CARRIE K.S. OKINAGA, ESQ.GORDON D. NELSON, ESQ.DEPARTMENT OF THE CORPORATION COUNSELCITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU530 S. King Street Room 110Honolulu, HI 96813

Counsel for the CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU

LINCOLN S.T. ASHIDA, ESQ.WILLIAM V. BRILHIANTE, JR., ESQ.MICHAEL J. UDOVIC, ESQ.DEPARTMENT OF THE CORPORATION COUNSELCOUNTY OF HAWAII101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325Hilo, HI 96720

Counsel for the COUNTY OF HAWAII

Certificate of ServicePage 3

HENRY Q CURTISKAT BRADYLIFE OF THE LAND76 North King Street, Suite 203Honolulu, HI 96817

CARL FREEDMANHAIKU DESIGN & ANALYSIS4234 Hana Hwy.Haiku, HI 96708

WARREN S. BOLLMEIER IIPRESIDENTHAWAII RENEWABLE ENERGY ALLIANCE46-040 Konane Place, #3816Kaneohe, HI 96744

DOUGLAS A. CODIGA, ESQ.SCHLACKITO LOCKWOODPIPER & ELKINDTopa Financial Center745 Fort Street, Suite 1500Honolulu, HI 96813

Counsel for BLUE PLANET FOUNDATION

MARK DUDAPRESIDENTHAWAII SOLAR ENERGY ASSOCIATIONP. 0. Box 37070Honolulu, HI 96837

RILEY SAITOTHE SOLAR ALLIANCE73-1294 Awakea StreetKailua-Kona, HI 96740

JOEL K. MATSUNAGAHAWAII BIOENERGY, LLC737 Bishop Street, Suite 1860Pacific Guardian Center, Mauka TowerHonolulu, HI 96813

Certificate of ServicePage 4

KENT D. MORIHARA, ESQ.KRI S N. NAKAGAWA, ESQ.SANDRAL. WILHIDE, ESQ.MORIHAPA LAU & FONG LLP841 Bishop Street, Suite 400Honolulu, HI 96813

Counsel for HAWAII BIOENERGY, LLC

THEODORE E. ROBERTSSEMPRA GENERATION101 Ash Street, HQ 12San Diego, CA 92101-3017

CLIFFORD SMITHMAUI LAND & PINEAPPLE COMPANY, INC.120 Kane StreetKahului, HI 96732

KENT D. MORIHARA, ESQ.KRI S N. NAKAGAWA, ESQ.SANDRAL. WILHIDE, ESQ.MORIHARA LAU & FONG LLP841 Bishop Street, Suite 400Honolulu, HI 96813

Counsel for MAUI LAND & PINEAPPLE COMPANY, INC.

ERIK W. KVAMCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERZERO EMISSIONS LEASING LLC2800 Woodlawn Drive, Suite 131Honolulu, HI 96822

JOHN N. REISOPOGY INC.2660 Waiwai LoopHonolulu, HI 96819

GERALD A. SUMIDA, ESQ.TIM LUI-KWAN, ESQ.NATHAN C. NELSON, ESQ.CARLSMITH BALL LLPASB Tower, Suite 22001001 Bishop StreetHonolulu, HI 96813

Counsel for HAWAII HOLDINGS, LLC, dba FIRST WIND HAWAII

Certificate of ServicePage 5

CHRIS MENTZELCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERCLEAN ENERGY MAUI LLC619 Kupulau Dr.Kihei, HI 96753

HARLAN Y. KIMtJRA, ESQ.Central Pacific Plaza220 South King Street, Suite 1660Honolulu, HI 96813

Counsel for TAWHIRI POWER LLC

SANDRA-ANN Y . H. WONG, ESQ.ATTORNEY AT LAW, A LAW CORPORATION1050 Bishop Street, #514Honolulu, HI 96813

Counsel for ALEXANDER & BALDWIN, INC.through its division, HAWAIIANCOMMERCIAL& SUGARCOMPANY