In the fifth year of the Clean Energy Initiative, its progress is now being undermined by contention.

Wind and photovoltaic give us 200 megawatts, but they, as well as the undersea cable, agricultural biofuel, liquid natural gas and geothermal, are in contention.

Meanwhile, the state is still 90 percent on oil, and we haven’t made a dent in transportation. At this rate we won’t meet our 40 percent clean energy goal by 2020.

Although wind is the most effective of the nonfirm renewables, it’s been contained by contention. The wind protests on Lanai and Molokai feed each other and foment discontent on other islands.

People fret over NIMBY, but why don’t they give wind credit for its aesthetic and productivity? What will NIMBY mean when oil hits $200 and their bills go ballistic? To joust with wind can only be quixotic.

Photovoltaic is our next-best bet, but it’s in contention, too. It’s expensive, and won’t sell without incentives. Tax credits get people to invest in PV. If we withdraw the incentives, PV will slow down.

This year we spent $173 million on PV tax credits, and some legislators want to cut or terminate them, to say nothing of the efforts of the Tax Office to curb abuse. Watch the fur fly in the 2013 Legislature.

Even if wind and PV continue to expand, they are not firm power. Without firm power to generate the base load, we’ll have to continue using oil. But the best firm power alternatives are all in contention.

Locally grown agricultural biofuel is firm and could run the generators. Despite the obvious long-term community benefits, there is serious opposition to the Aina Koa Pono project on Hawaii island.

Although AKP has reduced its price, the opposers still feel it will cost too much. The surcharge Hawaiian Electric Co. requested has added to the contention, even though that charge will look more trivial as oil escalates.

The surcharge proposal includes the novel idea of equalizing rates among the islands. Although any surcharge bothers us, the notion of equalized rates would be a huge step forward. Isn’t it time for that?

Equalized rates would, of course, favor the neighbor islands. That would be fair if they were sharing their resources with Oahu. But why would we give them equalized rates when they don’t share?

Liquid natural gas is firm, cheap, plentiful and American, and could be used to generate the base load. But it’s fossil fuel and could take us off the path to clean energy, and so it’s in contention.

This might be of less concern if we could be sure that the use of LNG will be partial and temporary and not become a long-term dependency, like oil. In any case, the Sierra Club and Blue Planet Foundation are opposing the importation of LNG.

There’s a glass ceiling on geothermal. The unkind opposition of the 1990s is still under the hood, and no one pushes for geothermal to go to its potential. This could change with HECO’s request for proposals in January.

Geothermal would do better with a cable to Maui. But that would be risky, and no developer would take it on while the Maui-Oahu cable is still in contention. Contention on one stalls the others.

This takes us to the larger contention over whether we should have an interisland grid at all. It raises the secession issue we saw in the Superferry and the Molokai blockade. To move into the 21st century and unify the state, we need to link the islands.

Nuclear would be the cheapest and most efficient of all, but I don’t have to mention the contention we would have with that.

In short, every proven renewable that could replace oil to generate base load power is in contention. If we want to meet our goals, like Congress we’ll have to stop the contention. We can’t just say no to all the alternatives, or we’ll go off the cliff, too.

For two hands clapping, we need a countervailing power, a cohort that will take affirmative action for the development of clean energy projects. It could come either from the private sector or government.

In government we have the Energy Office, the Public Utilities Commission, the Consumer Advocate and a raft of approval agencies, but we don’t have an agency empowered to take affirmative action. If we want government to be a countervailing power, we’ll need to change that.

These days, contention seems to be the new normal. In a battlefield of Babel, we’re kicking the can down the road and deceiving ourselves on what’s around the bend. 2013 is a good time for better progress.

———

Jay Fidell, a longtime business lawyer, founded ThinkTech Hawaii, a digital media company that reports on Hawaii’s tech and energy sectors of the economy. Reach him at fidell@lava.net.