Hawaii is seen across the globe as a model for leadership on climate and clean energy solutions. However, a bill passed by the Legislature and awaiting Gov. David Ige’s signature would backpedal on the state’s progress toward a clean, resilient and affordable energy future.

This measure, Senate Bill 2510, would require every island to derive at least 33.33% of its energy from “firm” renewable energy sources and prohibit any island from using more than 45% of any single type of renewable energy resource.

We appreciate the need for reliability in our energy systems. And diversifying our energy resources is certainly important as we transition off of imported fossil fuels. However, neither reliability nor diversification requires setting arbitrary percentage requirements in statute, which may result in unintended consequences hindering each island from customizing its energy mix based on actual grid needs, what is locally available on-island, and what is affordable for residents and businesses.

There are several concerning aspects of SB 2510. First, the measure’s definition of “firm” renewable — which excludes solar or wind energy paired with batteries — would mean that each island would be required to have at least a third of its power coming from a narrow set of resources that may not even be available locally — such as geothermal energy or the tremendous swathes of land necessary to grow biomass. The result could be continued reliance on imported energy sources, like wood pellets hauled across the ocean to keep the lights on. We have felt the impact of relying on imported energy with the recent spike in oil prices due to the war in Ukraine. Our 100% renewable energy future should be powered by local resources — not imported sources of energy that leave us vulnerable.

Second, the arbitrary 45% cap on any particular renewable energy source could hamper or even prohibit the further use of solar energy — one of our most abundant renewable energy resources — to power our islands. Kauai has already exceeded, and Maui and Oahu are nearing, this 45% threshold for solar. Both rooftop and planned utility-scale solar projects for these islands may be frozen or put on hold indefinitely if the bill is signed into law. While the climate crisis worsens, this bill would put the brakes on the remarkable progress we’ve been making.

Finally, and perhaps most concerning for ratepayers, is that the rigid structure for our state plan proposed in SB 2510 provides no consideration for the cost to ratepayers or impacts to the environment. Rather than leaving flexibility to the state Public Utilities Commission to balance cost, grid reliability, environmental concerns and the public interest when approving projects, state policy would be to approve projects that might be more expensive for customers compared to more cost-effective renewables in order to conform to these arbitrary requirements.

Hawaii has come a long way in being a recognized leader in responding to the climate destabilization crisis. Admittedly, we still have a ways to go in ensuring the reliability of our energy systems, and SB 2510 has certainly helped to uplift this concern. Nonetheless, by tying our islands’ hands with fixed renewable energy percentage requirements for specific technologies while smart grid and energy storage innovations evolve in real-time, we risk shifting our islands from being a climate role model into a cautionary tale.

We invite you to join us in urging Governor Ige to veto this problematic measure.

Melissa Miyashiro is executive director of Blue Planet Foundation; Wayne Chung Tanaka is executive director of Sierra Club of Hawai‘i.