Six years after Gov. David Ige signed into law a bill that directs the state’s utilities to generate 100% of their electricity sales from renewable resources by 2045, Hawaii is still the most petroleum-dependent state in the nation.

Currently relying on imported fossil fuels for upwards of 60% of electrical power leaves Hawaii particularly vulnerable to fuel and energy disruptions, unpredictable cost fluctuations as well as unintended fuel releases into marine environments, and impacts of climate change, according to the state Energy Office. The push to produce more clean energy here is critical for Hawaii’s envisioned future.

Also critical is taking into due consideration health- and safety-related concerns of residents in communities in which large renewable energy projects are sited. In one effort to address those concerns, the City Council is weighing three bills that would increase Honolulu’s set distance between wind turbines and neighboring property.

Under the current land use ordinance, the city has stumbled in its effort to balance green-energy ambition with community protections. The law requires a setback in which the distance between a turbine and property lines is no closer than the full height measure of a project’s tallest windmill.

In the case of the controversial Na Pua Makani project in Kahuku, the city allowed construction of some of the nation’s tallest windmills — eight turbines, each 568 feet in height. What’s more, it granted waivers allowing them as close as 284 feet from a property line. Such closeness to homes and schools in the community raises valid nuisance and health-related concerns.

Whirring turbine gearbox noise and flickering blade shadows can rob a neighborhood of tranquility — and the Kahuku Community Association also points to worries about physical safety should the towers be hit by mechanical failure, accidents, fires and other mishaps.

Bill 29 would require turbines to be at least 1,500 feet or a distance two times the height of the structure away from all property lines, whichever is greater. And Bill 28 would push back placement at least 1.25 miles away from residential and other types of zoning.

Both are worthy of Council debate, while the third proposal, which would set a 5-mile minimum distance from property lines, is not. Bill 30 appears to be overzealous in that it would essentially eject all onshore wind projects, which are viewed as necessary in Hawaii’s clean-energy lineup. Each bill would affect only turbines that have a capacity of over 100 kilowatts.

Holding the best potential for rational compromise is Bill 28. In written testimony supporting its approach, the Energy Office said given that a setback or buffer of at least one mile is justified in some cases to sufficiently guard against concerns associated with onshore wind technology, a 1.25-mile setback would sensibly err on the side of caution.

Also, the agency rightly noted that third-party objective studies are needed to better pinpoint appropriate sites for wind power. They should be based, in part, on examination of noise levels and noise-related health issues, such as headache, anxiety and hearing loss.

Due to Oahu’s limit on sites suitable for utility-scale wind power, a possible upshot of the bills is a higher overall price tag for full-scale clean energy in Hawaii as other sources, such as increased quantities of solar power paired with energy storage, would be needed.

Of equal concern, though, is the need to avoid repeating mistakes tied to Na Pua Makani’s installation, which resulted in over 200 arrests of protesters in 2019. To realize lasting clean-energy goals, the city must work in better tandem with communities established long before turbine projects took shape.