12-04-2011, 07:52 AM
Even before the creation of the new version of the geothermal asset fund, in the original permits for the project, there is an area referred to as 'the impacted area'( I seem to remember that it was called Rule 12). The funds were designed to mitigate the negative impacts of geothermal development on the surrounding community. There was a very specific radius of impact spelled out: 4.1 miles from the plant boundary. So Pahoa is included in the area. During the blowout, there were lots of dead birds lying in the streets of Pahoa, as though to underscore the accuracy of that radius. Leilani and Nanawale are also within the area impacted by geothermal. HPP is not.
The geothermal funds should be for public projects not otherwise in the CIP budget. Thus, Puna should get our share of CIP money PLUS the geothermal money for use in the impacted (4.1 mile) area.
Now here comes a spanner that I gratuitously throw into the works: with 2 Puna council districts, both of which have portions within the impacted area, our elected councilpersons will have to work together (and not at odds with each other) to decide on projects. It seems to me that the fairest way to do this would be for D.5 councilperson to choose projects in FY 2012-13 and D.4 councilperson to choose in FY 2013-14 - unless they decide to choose a project that will span both districts.
I am really concerned about James' idea of an advisory committee, because a lot depends on who selects the members, who the members are, and their agendas. This could be a real political football. For example, if someone from HPP were named to the committee, he would not necessarily support projects in the impacted area. On the other hand, if the 2 Puna councilpersons work together, they can be held accountable - either by corporation counsel or by the voters themselves.
The geothermal funds should be for public projects not otherwise in the CIP budget. Thus, Puna should get our share of CIP money PLUS the geothermal money for use in the impacted (4.1 mile) area.
Now here comes a spanner that I gratuitously throw into the works: with 2 Puna council districts, both of which have portions within the impacted area, our elected councilpersons will have to work together (and not at odds with each other) to decide on projects. It seems to me that the fairest way to do this would be for D.5 councilperson to choose projects in FY 2012-13 and D.4 councilperson to choose in FY 2013-14 - unless they decide to choose a project that will span both districts.
I am really concerned about James' idea of an advisory committee, because a lot depends on who selects the members, who the members are, and their agendas. This could be a real political football. For example, if someone from HPP were named to the committee, he would not necessarily support projects in the impacted area. On the other hand, if the 2 Puna councilpersons work together, they can be held accountable - either by corporation counsel or by the voters themselves.